Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

'In the News' duplicate content with 'Timeline' page

After noticing the 'in the news' section was moved to the new page, I just noticed that January's text exists in both places. Can the links in this main article for January be some kind of include, so all editing takes place on the timeline? Right now, it's going to take a lot of work to just keep them sync'ed. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Venzuelan exit polls

As Ryan pointed out I should put comments on the talk page, I do have a flair for check in commentary, though it was Avenue that kept putting the venezuela stuff back in the article. Anyway, from the articles I've read I believe the venezuelan exit poll number discrepancy issue has been debunked. The discrepancy charge may have come from a right wing US group (or a right wing venezuelan group with ties to a US group) which is encouraging the overthrow of chavez. The "official" exit polls, at least the ones endorsed by carter and other international observers, had chavez winning by the official results margin. It should also be noted Venezuela uses open architecture voting machines I believe which provide three! separate paper trails which are each vote counted individualy. The separate counts matched in the final election from the articles I've read. I can provide links. Maybe the issue is confused between the recall election and the subsequent regular election. Because of controversies around the recall election they may have made the subsequent election super fair, using open architecute voting machines with the paper trail(s). Carter and other observers were there for the subseuqent election, not the recall election I believe though. zen master 20:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've also been guilty of not commenting on the talk page - sorry. My edit was mainly aimed at restoring improvements I had made to coverage of the Ukrainian exit polls, which had been reverted to a version with the wrong tense. Zen-master, I thought from the edit summary that your reversion was mainly aimed at the Hispanic paragraph, and I guessed that the Venezuelan information might have been deleted by mistake. Clearly I was wrong - my apologies. I would be interested in reading the articles on the Venezuelan polls, if you have the links handy. I thought those results illustrated an important point, namely that the accuracy of exit polls is not always accepted by external observers, but I may be confusing the two elections as you suggested. Avenue 09:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All "independent" observers endorsed the Venezuelan election results (Venezuela's electronic vote machines seem to offer much more auditability than the ones we have here in the USA, perhaps because there is also a paper trail separate from the electronic machines) Here are some URLs, first one from Jimmy Carter: [1] [2] [3] zen master 04:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute status

The current

requires that the assigner:

"Use this boilerplate when there is no discussion of a dispute on the talk page, but the article does not appear to conform to NPOV guidelines. You should explain what's wrong with the article on the talk page."

So, what is the current status of POV complaints? I don't see any to merit the tag in the talk content above, but that's not to say there isn't one someplace. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a dud disclaimer. If someone puts up boilerplate like this they should raise NPOV discussion on the talk page even if none is ongoing at the time they insert it. Since I see no ongoing NPOV dispute on the talk page I'm removing the boilerplate. Please restore, and summarise why on this talk page, if you disagree. No problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carrp's unilateral removal of sources and content

Carrp, I completely disagree with the rationale behind your recent edits. You removed actual source video of Ohio voting, Greg Palast's content, Olbermann's blog, Reuters and other articles, etc., which are of important educational and contextual value to the issue.

Just because the SOURCE is POV does NOT MAKE IT IMPROPER! This article is not 'Election Integrity', it's 'Election Irregularities'. Olbermann, Palast, BBV, and others have had and continue to play important roles in this issue, and while I may agree with a few of your changes, and a few deletions of possibly 'stale' articles, your removal of the sources and articles on a 'POV' basis is completely inappropriate and ill-considered. Least of all without detailed discussion.

Participants in an event, by nature, have POV. The article can cite and evaluate their POV without itself being POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree completely with Ryan. Removal of documentary footage is especially alarming. Kevin Baas^talk 18:54, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Ryan, I have to disagree with you on several points. External links should be source material, not someone's blog or rant. As for POV, there were two links to DemocraticUnderground.com, which can't be considered a source by stretch of the imagination. As far as I know, the only source I mistakenly removed was BBV, when I removing the links to every chapter of a book Bev Harris is trying to sell. I have no problem with a link to BBV's main page.

If there were only a few external links, I would have no problem with letting some unnecessary ones remain on the page. As has been discussed at length, this page needs massive editing. I was doing my part to help with this editing. Personally, I would like to see the justification for every link in the external links section. I think quite a few more are candidates for removal. Instead of reverting the page, let's discuss why a link should be included. Carrp 18:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on the other side. Kevin Baas^talk 18:59, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

(More...) ::Page size has been dramatically reduced, to about 1/3 of its original. There is general acceptance that the effort to reduce size is no longer urgent.

The external links section is abnormally large in large part because their has been an abnormal proportion of relevant infomation dissemenated through the internet in comparision with the more traditional mediums. To mantain representative proportion both consistent with other wikipedia articles and with the distrubition of information for this particular topic, one should thus expect this section to be abnormally large.

This does not, however, mean that there is not room to reduce this section or otherwise alleviate problems posed by its length. It means, however, that both the urgency of reduction and the extent to which it should be reduced, if any, are overstated. A greater degree of conservativism in editing is merited, and excising without consensus (explicit or implied, de jure or de facto) is not, and without substantial justification may be legitimately construed as censorship. However, I assume in good faith that this was not Caarp's witting intention. Kevin Baas^talk 19:32, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Yes, Carp's removal of links was very suspicious since his checkin comments didn't actually match what he did. Censorship is not the correct way to go about "fixing" alleged POV problems. If someone repeatedly make an unevidenced claim thank many links are "unnecessary" then I agree with Kevin that burden of proof is definitely on that person. Carp also fails to realize the article underwent massive editing just recently, from 181k down to 65k -- what remains is of core importance. Though, we should clean up and update, and perhaps feature more prominently the summary election controversies article, I may work on that. zen master 19:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Carrp that some of the external links could be removed, but I also agree with others that the way he went about it was generally not productive. Removing the links to individual chapters of Bev Harris' book seems justified. But wholesale removal of others with a misleading edit summary was not. And for an article about a controversy such as this, it can be useful to document or link to less authoritative claims or more extreme viewpoints. Kevin makes a good point in noting that much of the material has been released over the internet and not through more traditional channels. -- Avenue 00:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carrp - you're removing sources again for the same rationale as before. Each of those links is to a group, site or organization that has had important involvement in this issue. If POV of the source is your objection, can those be sectioned appropriately? Because in my opinion, those are valid external references. Others, with detailed analysis, can be put there instead, if you'd prefer.

Here they are:

• truthout.org
• whatreallyhappened.com
• disinfopedia.org
• EFF.org the Electronic Frontier Foundation
• [4] Democratic Underground
• Keith Olbermann's blog

and

• [5] Democratic Underground discussion board on the topic

Do they warrant a 'disclaimer' section?

And I reverted your removal of a specific blog thread dealing specifically with this issue. It's not 'evidence', it's a 'reference' for discussion, by a group involved in the grassroots investigation of fraud in the election. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I listened to your concerns from the last time I edited and instead of editing multiple links in one edit, I am editing one at a time and providing justification in my edit summaries. While some do have POV issues, the main reason reason for removal is that the links had little to nothing to do with the article. You'll notice that the vast majority of the links are untouched. I'm not looking to replace them them with conservative sources, just to prune the ones that would not be helpful to a reader. Seriously, someone reading the article would be lost if they arrived on a site like EFF. The 2004 election is a tiny part of what that organization deals with. Link to one of their articles as a source when necessary, but including them as an external link is somewhat silly. Carrp 02:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's better etiquette to summarize your reasons here, and if possible, put them here for consideration. Otherwise, after some flurry of work, folks will have to do deep history reviews. Summaries shouldn't be unaccompanied in talk, given the concerns raised already. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see the groupthink is alive and well here. Two months down the road and this article is still ponderous and unreadable. Why does Keith Olbermann's blog have any place in the article? The EFF home page? That nut site whatreallyhappened.com? Rhobite 02:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

KO was reporting the Election Irregularities when no-one else was, had the major figures (including Blackwell) on his program, and for many who are still obsessed with this topic, he was the sole source of mainstream media. The EFF is involved in investigation of Election Fraud (or was at the time the source was added). I know less about whatreallyhappened, but from looking at it just now, it houses a significant volume of material (whether you agree with it's conclusions or not) relevant to the issue. Your attribution of 'nutcase' lets me know your likely opinion. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll refresh your memory, WhatReallyHappened is the "Israel did 9/11" site. Not exactly a pillar of journalistic integrity. It's a conspiracy theory site, it's irrelevant to this article, and it shouldn't be linked. Rhobite 03:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

In reference to Ryan's re-addition of the DU discussion, please keep in mind that although Wikipedia is not paper, it's also not a junkyard. Just because a discussion could be marginally useful to a reader doesn't mean it needs to be included as an external link. The POV doesn't amtter. I also believe it would be of little use to readers to include a link to a FreeRepublic discussion. Carrp 02:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Length of debates on objection to Ohio's votes

Maybe this is a minor point, but I'm having trouble establishing whether the House debate and vote took three hours or four. This article [6] suggests four:

"Senate debate took just over an hour, while the House — including an unusually long roll call to accommodate traveling lawmakers — used almost three more."

And this one states:

"The normally perfunctory ceremony of counting and certifying Electoral College votes was delayed for about four hours as Democrats unsuccessfully challenged Ohio's votes for Bush."

But the House and Senate votes ended less than two hours apart. [7] [8] Does anyone know when they began? -- Avenue 00:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The 'two hours' comes from the legal requirement of a maximum of two hours of debate per objection. It refers to the actual amount of time each member of Congress speaks (5 mins each this time). So, just like a football game, that two hours of debate can last 2.5 hours, or 4 hours, based on how many members speak, and a lot of stuff that happens while the clock is 'not running', like the roll. Honestly, I'd spend my neurons on other things. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 00:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

clarification of summary -> daughter article relationship

While I'm slightly confused as to where people stand, I'm guessing that you don't have a problem with the summary -> daughter concept Ryan, you just don't like the idea of replacing this article outright with JML's. So how about this. I will take the page as it is currently and put a copy at 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities/summary , let us discuss here what major subtopics we should have, and try to reduce them to two paragraphs (number flexible), then cutting what is currently there verbatim into a main article (and hopefully adding what has been dropped in the past for clarity's sake). Once we have a summary article which contains all topics that people can agree on, we will replace this current page with the summary, and expand upon the daughter articles. What does the group think? --kizzle 02:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

We don't need a copy, and I strenuously disagree with creating a parallel version. Edit here in good faith. Edit the summary if you want in good faith. Why can people not see the most direct path? What is the fear? What is the problem?

Also, we must allow days for answers, not minutes, before a consensus of the available is assumed. A lot of folks have not weighed in at all, and we've created massive cruft in this spinning argument that could have been edits. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea. This article has lots of great info, but it needs such a huge overhaul that working on a temporary version is probably the best way to proceed. I also hope that there's as much discussion about what goes in the article as there is about what comes out. Carrp 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I've listed this page on Wikipedia: Request for comment to get other people's opinions on the detailed/summary issue. I think having outside views from editors would be very helpful. Carrp 03:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified the issue. No one disagrees that this should be a summary, and the detail moved to daughters to a reasonable and continuing extent, as I have said literally a dozen times. Don't reframe the argument. The issue is whether individuals contribute to that end by editing here, or by somehow replacing this content. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that detailed or summary is very relevant to the discussion. Just a few hours ago you said:

See why I think we should all discuss it, despite your own belief that it's a 'useful level of detail', others never involved may have other opinions...

I don't believe you clarified the issue on the RFC. I'm not going to revert, but I am going to edit. Carrp 03:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Useful level of detail' is a continuum. The issue is not the 'summary/detail' continuum (which you pose as a yes/no decision). The issue is exactly as I described. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A "summary" article of any really large issue/article is going to be really large itself, so size concerns alone should not be enough justification for further daughter article split offs, especially considering this article was reduced to 1/3rd its former size just recently. Can Carp please specifically indicate exactly what in the current article needs "summarizing"? zen master 03:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please see the numerous discussions above for a full description. As Ryan stated above "No one disagrees that this should be a summary, and the detail moved to daughters to a reasonable and continuing extent". This article is currently 64k, which is twice the size an article should be. It's true that much editing has been done, but a 900lb man who loses 600lbs still isn't considered fit. Exactly what information will be moved or merged and where it will be moved to is the next part of the discussion. Carrp 03:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I keep thinking that moving the news'n'links out to daughterville will really help us visualize the remainder of the article. A large part of that ~64k is wikitext for those links. And Carrp, I agree wholeheartedly. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that 64k is neccessarily twice what an article "should be". I think that 64k is twice the average size of an article (32k), which is not neccessarily an appropriate standard. I don't deny that the article could use some more trimming, but I think a better estimate of what we should expect to end up with (but still, not neccessarily what we "should" end up with), would be the average size of comparable articles, such as ones previously listed under ongoing events. Kevin Baas^talk 20:43, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Moved the News out

And the page size is now 50k. If we move the external links as well, the page will be 41k. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved the hearing excerpts to 'recounts and legal challenges'. Should it be renamed to include 'hearings', etc.?

Either way, the article (including the external links) is now 45k -- RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I originally suggested the single word "remedies" to encompass recounts, legal, challenges, hearings, and investigations. If it were to not have hearings in it, I would prefer the current title to a title w/"remedies", as the current is more precise and not too long. Kevin Baas^talk 20:37, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

'remedies', while vague, isn't horrible. What about 'legal actions'? Do you at all object to my moving the hearing excerpts there? Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the hearings should have their own section in the daughter article. The only objection I would have does not concern hearings content in particular, but the accessibility of the relevant daughter article. I think it should be given the same attention that voting machines, vote suppression, and exit polls are given: a section w/2-3 paragraphs and a link to main article. Kevin Baas^talk 19:42, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

lets get the ball rolling

So far, I propose to keep these topics and move the rest out:

1. Voting machines and vendor issues
2. Exit Polls
3. Vote Suppression
4. Racial discrimination and other bias
5. Other Controversies

also, I think a summarized version of the Voter's Rights advocacy organization and political efforts and responses should be in sections as well. The rest should be taken out. So far that's it. don't bite my head off if you think i missed something, just tell me what you think should be in there. --kizzle 05:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not biting your head off, but I recommend you approach this in terms of what modifications you can make, not what should not be 'excised'. The page is now 45k, including links, so the difference between it and your version should again be incremental and improve the article... start small, and edit, don't shred... -- RyanFreisling @ 05:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And btw, I just got the ball rolling, by making a few edits, that made a difference. Note that if the external links are also 'exported' to a new or existing page, the page size BEFORE editing to your desired format is 36k. I think that is unarguably within the range of possibility for 'good faith' editing as I've described. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reject any automatic assumption that an article at or under 32kb is fine. The 32kb line is set based on browser capability. I believe that to have available a summary article of substantially less than 32kb, with appropriate links to more detailed information, is helpful to some readers.

Ryan, as I've said above (more than once), I began the process that you call for -- changing this article, by making incremental edits and by posting to the talk page with ideas about general directions. My edits to the article were reverted. Some people on the talk page agreed with me but others vehemently disagreed. We've already seen enough discussion to know that there's still no consensus. It's not a matter of a rephrasing here and a slight trim there. It's two completely different visions of the article, if I may repeat the word I've generally used. For an example, note zen master's comment above, that the summary article is "focused on what I believe are non core issues". To combine these two articles into one, we'd have to write an article that (1) satisfied my desire for a comprehensive summary of all the issues (letting the reader decide which one(s), if any, to focus on in greater detail), and (2) satisfied zen master's desire for an article that focused on what he considers the core issues. I don't think that's doable. My conclusion is based on my having made edits and comments to this article, and on having seeing the reverts and comments made in response, by zen master and others. For now, let's just improve the existing articles -- this one, the summary, and the various daughter articles. (Of course, if those of you who like the approach of this article think it can be trimmed without losing its focus on what you want emphasized, fine, go ahead and trim it. Just don't expect to persuade anyone to vote to delete the summary just because you managed to get this one under 32kb.) JamesMLane 06:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the paranoia is coming from, as I've said I don't want VfD. I'm only sorry that your selective quoting of zen_master etc. serves to justify not participating, and instead 'taking your marbles and going home'. I see no external reason why you couldn't begin to affect this article for the better. I just think it's unecessary. Any other motive you ascribe me is falsely ascribed. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, simply because you 'have a vision', does not mandate the need for your article. There is no 'Pokemon, James' version' wiki page, afaik. Whither process, as I've already asked? You approached this process with a fait accompli that this article, that didn't match your vision, would give way to your own, which is an 'anti-community'-minded approach. I've had my edits undone, you just try to be intelligent, responsive, and fair - and in your case, you already have a template for what you COULD contribute, if you chose to. You are saying you choose not to, and that seems a waste, if we're 'on the same side', as someone said. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could adequately answer your repeated comments along these lines only by taking an hour or so to wade through this article's huge history and its talk page's huge history and assembling a collection of the relevant edits and comments. Your characterization of anything as a "fait accompli" is, to put it kindly, not in accord with my recollection. Because I think that on important issues, we're on the same side, I strongly believe that it's not a productive use of your time or of mine for each of us to continue saying the same things over and over again. We see it differently, OK? Let's leave it at that. I'm going to try to muster the willpower not to keep responding on the same point, in the hope that this discussion will die off and free both of us for more useful pursuits. JamesMLane 07:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do you think JML wrote that summary in the first place? He took the page, made incrimental edits to it until it was to his liking. Personally, I like his version in that it is very brief and serves as a good primer for people who want to read casually. Does anyone else agree with Ryan's stance on this? --kizzle 08:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware how a wiki page is written, and again I contend a page written by one person (or a few, with -50 edits) cannot supplant a page written by 100's of editors with 100s of edits. There is no need to prove a negative, so there is no value in any lack of response to your question (silence does not equal consent). Can we at long last focus on the real issue? Work collaboratively, in good faith, to create your vision. Creating 'your own version' and seeking to vote it to replace another, longstanding page is not the wiki way. You know this. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am seeking to work collaboratively. There is no wikipedia policy limiting the scope of change to gradual increments. The type of edit I want to make to this article is structural and deals with its form, not content. Such an edit cannot be made incrementally. This is not a replacement, as the content stays the same, but the form is changed. I don't think it is right to limit people from discussing a reorganization because it is not a gradual process. Incremental editing and group editing are not necessarily identical. It does not have to be JML's summary page identical, but I do like the issues he has stressed in his version. Thus, I reassert that we reopen discussions about the form of this page and what are the most important topics we need to stress (and to base what daughter articles will follow). I still think we as a group should come to a decision about what main topics should make up (and not what has made up) the 2004 U.S. Election controversies. Anything we come up with will be based upon what current content is there and relocating any additional content to daughter articles. One more thing, in the process of reorganizing a larger page towards a summary page, we must by definition discuss "excising" topics to daughter articles, or else it will not be possible to create a summary at all. --kizzle 20:19, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

The wiki policy is to resolve issues in good faith, by editing, not excising or replacing. You wanna pull stuff, we can discuss it here, and edit it there! Otherwise, you are not collaborating on the article. There is nothing prohibiting you from informing this version with those aspects of JML's that you like. I do not understand what I see as an outright unwillingness to participate using the fundamental, basic approach - editing. Assume_good_faith and don't assume your ideas cannot be made via editing. That is unfair to the article and to your goal alike. I have now said this a solid dozen times, and you have plead an incapability to even try. That's an unacceptable justification, and the article remains uninformed by your ideas, while we waste more and more time in circular discussion. Participate as an editor. That's the wiki way. Again, you know this. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Moving" would be the word, not "excising". Excising is censorship: "I don't want this to be true, so I will keep people from learning about it." - antithetical to the idea of "encyclopedia", and completely irresponsible. Often extremists will excise in the name of "NPOV", thinking that NPOV means "There shouldn't be anything that I don't want to be true in the article." That is not what is being done when content is moved for organizational purposes, so as to make information easier, not harder, to find. Kevin Baas^talk 20:30, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Bingo. Was about to make that point. Many thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well, "excising" was meant from this article into the daughter articles, so "moving" is equally applicable. --kizzle 21:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

An edit that I believe would immediately improve the size and quality of this article would be to merge the paragraphs of italicized quotes into their respective daughter pages. The quotes are good for supporting details, but are a bit too lengthy for a summary article. Carrp 15:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree completely. A lot of that has been done, and more is yet to do, for sure. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Kevin Baas^talk 20:13, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Maps

I like the first map at the top of the article. The improvement I could see would be to provide a link to the source and data. I looked at vote-protect.org, but I'm unfamiliar with the site layout and couldn't find the map there.

The second map (under other controversies)..., well it could use some work. It's very difficult to read the logos on the states and I'm not sure what the source is. Also, it doesn't seem to be very recent. I'm not sure if two maps are needed for this page. If there is the need for two, I'm sure there are far better maps than this second one. Carrp 15:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first map is based directly on the EIRS data at http://voteprotect.org and was properly accredited at one time. and the second is a Kevin Bass spectacular. Let's see how he weighs in. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The second map is up to date. Not much has happened in a while. Last I heard (and we seem to be keeping pretty close tabs on developments here) they're still pushing for a recount in New Mexico (and the Republican in Washington is still trying to overturn the election for governer). Personally, I'd like to put New Mexico back to dark red, but I've got to go with the latest info. If anyone has any updates for the map, please let me know.

I wish it was as pretty as the first map. Or smaller, but the legend can only get so small. I think it's an important map that gives people an idea of what's going on in America regarding election problems, remedy-wise; I think it complements the first map: problem<->solution. I think it should be kept, but would not be against moving it to a daugther article and/or modifying it if that was the consensus. Kevin Baas^talk 20:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Recounts and legal challenges

I think this daughter article deserves treatment in the main article consistent with that of the vote suppression, voting machines, and exit polls daugther article: a section w/a big link and about two paragraphs. As it stands now, there's one link to it somewhere on the page. Finding it is like playing "Where's Waldo?" Kevin Baas^talk 20:58, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

People shouldn't have to play "Where's Waldo", but a "See also" section shouldn't contain redundant links. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections. JamesMLane 12:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possible Federal lawsuit

In the second paragraph of the Introduction, we say "a Federal suit may be pending". I haven't found any mention of this elsewhere in the article, or in the daughter article on recounts and legal challenges. Can anyone please point me towards further information about this? -- Avenue 20:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought I had removed that - the lawyers initially said they intended to file a federal case, but nothing has been done thus far. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted from the congressional record!? Alarm goes off in my head.

Does anyone have a the content that was deleted, or want to transcribe it from a c-span video? We could post the transcription on WikiSource and link to it, and/or we could post it in the recounts and legal challenges daughter article if it's not too long. Kevin Baas^talk 20:41, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

I'll go digging. I've got the transcript, and I've got the video. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[9] <- probably not the most reliable site, but a start for people who are curious, unless you guys are talking about another speech. --kizzle 21:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Transcript posted to Kevin's talk page. Note that I did find DeLay's speech on the copy of the Record here, but not on other copies I've read recently. I will confirm, but until then, it may be better to omit what could be a false assertion. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GOP comments on challenges

"Republican lawmakers responded to Senator Boxer, and to Representative Tubbs-Jones and her colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, "with howls of derision." Some engaged in ad hominem tactics, labeling the objections "base" and "outrageous" (David Hobson, R-Ohio), and calling the objectors "aspiring fantasy authors" of "wild conspiracy theories," whose behaviour exemplified "their party's primary strategy to obstruct, to divide, to destroy" (Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio).

Others denounced the debate itself as "a travesty" (Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania), a "squandering time" by people "who persist in beating a dead horse" (Senator George Voinovich, R-Ohio); or, more gravely, as an exercise that "in the midst of a global war on terrorism <...> clearly emboldens those who would in fact undermine the prospect of democracy" (David Dreier (R-California), and "an assault against the institutions of our representative democracy" by the "X-Files wing" of the Democratic Party (Tom DeLay, R-Texas)."

--the verbatim is taken not from the Congressional Record, but from:

Michael Keefer: "The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio" Global Research January 24, 2005 http://globalresearch .ca/articles/KEE501A.html

Election 2000 controversy

Is there a wikipedia for the controversy surround the year 2000 election please? As far as I was aware it was the 2000 election that was George W Bush's most controversial so far, wasn't it? --Rebroad 21:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible reasons:

• People were paying more attention this time around, given the problems with the last election
• There were many more problems with this election than the last one
• The problems are more diverse this time
• More organizations are involved
• There's just a lot more info

The main problems, as I am aware, with the last election, were:

• the Florida Central Voter File
• inequitable distribution of voting machine technology (such that African American areas had technology known to be unreliable: punch-cards. -violating the Equal Protection Amendment
• corrupt judges: with either the audacity or insanity to rule that the law "if the voter's intent is clear, the vote should be counted" disenfranchises a specific race of people, violating the Equal Protection Amendment (see Bush v. Gore.) (and that the inequitable distribution of voting machines did not)

This election had many more problems, and included a blatently partisan judge as well (who went so far as to publicly denigrate the case and baselessly insult the attorneys.) Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

I think we/someone/everyone should undertake the development of a 2000 election controversies article from a historical perspective. Is there any controversy related information in the main 2000 election article (I haven't looked)? if so we can start from that. zen master T 21:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 2000 U.S. presidential election#Florida election results section is very relevant, along with some of the information in Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000#Campaign Review and Al Gore#2000 presidential election. -- Avenue 12:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

OK, I'm back. The various unresolved disputes have been swept away into archive pages.. but they're still here. Let's start with the exit poll section.

NPOV disputes:

• "the final published results from these exit polls are controversially adjusted to match vote counts" - there is no controversy to NEP's methods, outside of the minds of some editors here and fringe press

  There's controversy in the halls of friggin' congress! Kevin Baas^talk 08:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  I don't know what that means. Rhobite 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  I mean that there are congressmen who are involved in that dispute. I wrote an explanation of the "controversy" below. I think it makes it clearer. That sentence you pointed out could probably use some rewording, in light of the explanation below. Kevin Baas^talk 09:28, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• "Mitofsky's own report on the source of the exit poll discrepancy does not offer any evidence to support this hypothesis, and some statisticians, computer scientists and other commentators are unconvinced that this explains the observed discrepancy between exit polls and actual results." - This is original research and original argument. Wikipedia articles should not claim that he "does not offer any evidence". This paragraph needs to be cited or removed.

  It doesn't offer any evidence. That ain't research, that's a fact that's plain as day. Read the thing yo-self. Kevin Baas^talk 08:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could name "some statisticians, computer scientists, and other commentators" for me? Rhobite 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  Well I'm a statistician and computer scientist, if that helps. But I don't see how that's relevant. Do you see any evidence in there? Do you see anything that even claims to be evidence? Do you even see any data? What the hell would a statistician or computer scientist do with the reports? If anything, they'd say "What the hell am I supposed to be looking at?" In any case, if you want more info, you can read the irregularities->exit polls article. Kevin Baas^talk 09:28, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Steve Freeman, Jonathan Simon for starters... can't provide a hyperlink but a page # to each of their reports... is that good enough Rhobite? --kizzle 20:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• word "Errantly"

  where? Kevin Baas^talk 08:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  The word "errantly" is used a single time in the article. Are you really having trouble finding it? "A preliminary report from the California Institute of Technology errantly used adjusted exit poll data in an effort to prove there were no exit poll discrepancies." the word "errantly" is a POV value judgment. It needs to be attributed or removed.

  That's not POV. It's mathematically impossible to prove either way using adjusted exit poll data. Insofar as a false mathematical formula (for instance, 2+2=5) is an "error", the word "errantly" is a mathematical fact. Kevin Baas^talk 09:28, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  I agree with Kevin on this point. It's not POV to assert that that x=x is a vacuous statement, or even something more complicated like w(x/w)=x, as in the Caltech study (where w is the unadjusted Bush poll figure, and x is the Bush vote count figure). The word "errantly" seems to have disappeared; I've rephrased it as circular reasoning, but I'm open to suggestions for better ways to explain this. -- Avenue 14:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "Critics point out it doesn't make sense" - needs citation or removal.

  where? Kevin Baas^talk 08:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  Again, you could simply search the article. This is the next sentence after the Caltech thing. Unless you can name these critics I am removing the sentence. Rhobite 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's it for the exit poll section. More later. Rhobite 08:23, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite's argument does not make sense to me logically, why have exit polls if you are just going to adjust them to the actual vote results? The universy of penn prof is the one that makes that claim about Mitofsky's report I believe, we should change that to say who is saying what and get into more of the evidence for why people make the claims they do. "Critics point out" should be changed to "Critics claim" or something like that, feel free to fix obvious problems. zen master T 08:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in being dragged into another debate on the merits of the controversy. I am simply trying to remove value judgments and statements by imaginary critics from this family of articles. "Critics claim" is not acceptable. Rhobite 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Insofar as the supporters' pov is presented, the critics' pov should be presented, in order to retain NPOV. It's policy. Kevin Baas^talk 09:37, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Alright, here's the controversy re:exit poll, adjusted to the vote count. Firstly, let me restate zens' arg. If you have an exit poll, thats simply weighted by the vote count, what's the point of the exit poll - it's an exact copy of the vote count, why not just have a vote count? Wait, we already do! It would be nice to have an exit poll, too, didn't we use to have one?

Now secondly, let me state the diff here between exit polls in america and exit polls in other countries. Now here, we like to watch our election like a sports game, so the media pays for the exit polls, and they use it to predict the outcome. When they know the outcome for a given precinct, they throw that exit poll data out, because, assuming an election without sufficient irregularities, the tabulated vote counts are a more accurate indicator of how people voted. Fine. We get a better show, and free exit polls. Yea!

In other countries, the candidates pay for the exit polls, not the media. The candidates may have their own polling team, so that they can get an estimate of what the vote count should be. If the vote count differs significantly from the exit poll, that's an indication of fraud. That's why the candidates use exit polls; to check for fraud. The statistics and effectiveness of this method does not change from country to country. It works in America as much as any other country.

Problem is, the exit polls in America aren't, as we thought, free, on the contrary, they're unavailable! We don't know what the final exit polls are. We have most of the data, which is outside the margin of error in many states, consistently in the same direction. When the exit poll data is adjusted for voters for one party being more likely to accept the poll than voters from another party (rejection rates), using all the data we have, those states are even more outside of the margin of error, in that direction. We have here a statistical anomaly that is "significant", in that it demands an explanation.

Now, the problem is, we're not (in theory) supposed to have this data. If everything "worked out", we would only have the "adjusted" exit poll data, i.e. we'd only have the vote count, to compare against the vote count. This would not tell us that there is something "significant" demanding explanation, although there still would be something "significant" demanding explanation. Insofar as this is significant, insofar as having such an indicator that is a means of protection of the most fundamental right by which all other rights are protected, is important, there is something to be said as to whether we do or do not have that indicator, and whether we should or should not have it. This is where the controversy lies. Namely, that would the "exit poll data" be adjusted to the actual vote count AND the raw exit poll data be not available, as is the case, we would not, in theory, (and in this case, in practice, for the most part) have this indicator, and with it, this protection. Kevin Baas^talk 09:15, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more clear here, Edison/Mitofsky DO have the raw exit poll data, and it is (or will be) reposited in a private data repository (the name of which is in the exit poll article). The data does exist, but those people who have access to it, are not letting the public, or the U.S. Government, see it. Thus, it exists in coherent and readily transferable form, but is not being made "available". Kevin Baas^talk 21:44, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Instead of answering a single one of my questions, you've again tried to turn this into a debate. I'm rewriting the section tomorrow. Please don't think that my refusal to get into a petty debate means I don't understand the topic. I understand your points, and I agree that exit poll data should be more public. But that's irrelevant to my NPOV questions. Rhobite 09:19, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to answer the first question. Kevin Baas^talk 09:28, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

And I think that should be rewritten. I look forward to seeing your rewrite tommorow. I gave the long explanation in hopes that you might find it helpfull for your rewrite. It explains what I thought was meant by the sentence. I think that after your rewrite, it will be more precise, which is why I look forward to it. Kevin Baas^talk 09:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I rewrote some paragraphs of the exit poll section. I planned on making it shorter but plans change. Please give me feedback. This should be updated in the exit poll sub-article as well. Rhobite 20:33, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked over it fully, but first thing that struck me was "The goal of..." More accurately, what the television media used it for. something like "the goal of" or "the purpose of" or the "intended use of" makes it sound like it is particularly suited to this task, and not suited to be used for other purposes. However, what someone intends to use something for or buys something for does not affect it's applicability to any other purpose. For instance, if someone buys a tire to use to make a sandbox, that doesn't mean that a tire is not suitable to be used as a wheel on a car. Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Predicting the outcome of the election is the stated goal of NEP's exit polling. That's the reason why they perform several adjustments on the poll results. The adjustments increase the poll's predictive accuracy but as you point out, decrease its effectiveness at detecting fraud. So the polling is particularly suited for predicting the outcome of elections. Rhobite 21:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

These adjustments were made after the final election results were cast. Doesn't this make their utility in predictive ability moot? Why would networks pay millions of dollars to simply have Mitofsky come up with numbers that were corrected to the vote count? Why bother? --kizzle 21:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

You confused either the logic or the semantics there: the adjustment of the poll results is partiuclarly suited for predicting the outcome of elections. The actual polling is particularly suited for gathering data about how people voted, irrespective of what that data is ultimately used for, or what is done to the data after it is gathered. Kevin Baas^talk 21:22, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I like the changes to the first para. I think that's perfect. I also like the inclusion of the USCountVotes report. Some quotes from it, though would be less interpretive and more informative than things like "claimed that NEP did not adequately investigate whether the type of voting machine was a factor in discrepancies." Also, the I'd like to see the quote from mitofsky back in. It was much clearer, and, again, less interpretive and more informative. (and matching quote for quote would balance pov, and show the interpersonal conflicts at ground zero)

I also think some of the background and history should go back in, like how the exit poll data was leaked. Imagining that I was a new reader who didn't know anything about this before i read it, I would be interested to know about this, and would be confused about how this all went down, otherwise. Kevin Baas^talk 21:18, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Rhobite's argument does not seem to make sense to me, once you "adjust" a predictive instrument you've irrevocably tarnished that instrument. Performing any adjustment is in opposition to the stated goal of predicting the outcome of an election. zen master T 21:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some responses: When I say "polling" I am referring to the whole process, including analysis. The first step, gathering data is called "sampling". I'm wary of quotes but I agree that one small quote each from Mitofsky and the USCountVotes report would be helpful. I don't think that I removed any specifics on how the results were leaked - I believe that's all covered in the sub-article.

Zen-master, you are wrong. You don't know the exact mechanism of NEP's adjustments, but you're willing to conclude that they "tarnish" the polls' predictive value anyway. I can't see how someone would object to their age-race-sex adjustment, for example. I'm not willing to discuss this further with you since this isn't a debate class. None of this sophistry belongs in the article. Rhobite 21:56, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing the exact mechanism of the adjustment is a convenient way of preventing people from precisely criticizing the adjustment. The exit poll was "adjusted" by NEP because they claim or assume the final election results are accurate, critics should be allowed to criticize this action shouldn't they? zen master T 22:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Zen-master does know the exact mechanism of NEP's adjustments. It's pretty straightforward: weight the results by the vote totals - although this is a short and seemingly ambiguous sentence, it is an exact and mathematically unique process, that is rather straight-forward. If, for instance, 50% of voters voting democrat that were polled wear a hat, and 50% wear no hat, while 80%-R=H, 20%-R=nH, then so should be the case for the vote count. the number of total people who were a hat, then would be the number of democratic voters in the vote count times .5 plus the number of repub voters in the vote count times .2. Same holds true for everything sampled. You condition all the probabilities on how people voted, and then just switch the poll results with the vote count. No sophistry here. Is sophistry involved? The exit polls would sure like to keep it a mysterious, and say "it's over your head, you wouldn't understand." sounds Sophist to me.

What he means by "tarnish" is, besides the fact that now the poll data on how people voted is no more, having been replaced by the vote count, information regarding the other distributions, such as race, age, sex, is lost. (Because information cross-entropy is always lower than information self-entropy, by the Cramer-Rao inequality or Cauchy-Schwarz? There is no article here. The point is, information self-entropy = -sum_x[p1(x)lnp1(x)] >= -sum_x[(p2(x)lnp1(x)] = information cross-entropy, where p2(x) represents adjusted data) That is, the probability that the age-sex-race distribution is accurate is thereby decreased (not increased, contrary to intuition), regardless of the accuracy of the vote count (even if the election was absolutely flawless).

In sum, Zen Master is, mathematically (and thus logically) speaking, correct in asserting that adjusting the exit poll data "tarnishes" their predictive accuracy.

There really isn't any statistical "analysis" done on the polls. They're just weighted - that's not analysis. Regardless of what you mean when you say "polling", whether you refer to sampling or what have you, I am clearly (as you have noticed) refering to "sampling" when I say "polling", and the logic of my argument is thus apparent, and stands. It is important to make the distinction between the sampling and adjusting of the data, as it is crucial to understanding the logic here, such as raw exit poll data being possible indicators of possible fraud, adjusted exit poll not being so, raw exit poll data being available or not, etc. The logic and arguments can not be understood without this distinction be mantained. Kevin Baas^talk 22:21, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

How is a confidence interval not classified as statistical analysis? That's how they call each state, based on a 99.5% confidence interval constructed from the weighted data. I don't think they call a state unless the entire interval lies above 50%. 95% confidence intervals are also applied to the raw results to account for sampling error. This is all on the Mystery Pollster site. I'm interested in hearing you explain that one away. Should be easy, since you're a statistician. Rhobite 22:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Right, you're talking about what's also known as margin of error. See variance, standard deviation, normal distribution, and more precisely, multinomial distribution. Kevin Baas^talk 23:00, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I looked up "statistical analysis" in wikipedia, and found it redirected to statistics. There are certainly some procedures in statistics that could be usefull in analysis, but when one is doing statistics one is not neccessarily doing analysis. I find the concantenation of the word "analysis" to "statistics", esp. insofar as it just redirects to statistics, to be meaningless and misleading. If you're doing statistics, you're doing statistics. If you're doing statistical analysis, you're doing statistics AND analysis. Obviously, confidence interval is a concept used in statistics. I dispute that it is analysis, thou. Kevin Baas^talk 23:22, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Rhobite, do you understand my argument, that the logic needs to be articulated (broken up into joints) in the article; that one can't simply refer to the entire process as "polling", but that it should be split into two parts, sampling (people polling the voters) and "adjusting", in light of my long explanation to your first question regarding pov, that you stated you are in full agreement with, and my shorter response: the adjustment of the poll results is partiuclarly suited for predicting the outcome of elections. The actual polling(of voters, by people) is particularly suited for gathering data about how people voted, irrespective of what that data is ultimately used for, or what is done to the data after it is gathered. That is, this data can be used to predict the outcome, or as an indicator of possible fraud (to predict the present). Kevin Baas^talk 23:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I clarified some of the polling vs. adjusting language in the article. You can edit it too, of course. Let's drop the statistics discussion, it's off-topic anyway. Rhobite 00:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Although none of that is falsifiable or verifiable because NEP does'nt present the data, I don't doubt that there is a set of 1400 precincts wherein Kerry's vote was overstated by an average of 1.9%. Nor do I, by the same token, doubt that there is a set of 1400 precincts wherein Bush's vote was overstated by an average of 1.9%. I do wonder, however, what the point of presenting this information in the article is. It is not unexpected, and therefore not significant. There are things much more significant than expected ecological variance, such as unexpected and unexplained aggregate discrepancy. Kevin Baas^talk 01:45, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

You have no idea how annoying this is. I cite sources, you pretend that you understand statistical analysis and yet again lecture me with patronizing nonsense. There's only one problem with your theory. NEP conducted exit polling in 1480 precincts. So the 1400 precincts analyzed represents the vast majority. Rhobite 02:13, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Did they? Well I stand corrected. Perhaps you should post that figure and cite it, it will make that statistic a lot more substantial, as people will be able to put it in perspective. In any case, I hope you can understand my doubts regarding reports from NEP: it's like the story of the boy who cried wolf, they haven't giving me much reason to trust them, and plenty of reason to doubt them or be suspicious of them. If they'd show the actual data, so that anyone can verify what they say, I'll believe everything they say or imply that I can verify with the data. However, as it stands, the report cited is unscientific, as it is not falsifiable or verifiable. Kevin Baas^talk 02:53, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Side Note, more statistics info

It's a long thread here but I think the analysis presented is relevant to recent discussions on this talk page. zen master T 02:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and this zen master T 02:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i'm kobeisguilty on that, btw :)--kizzle 05:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting read, thank you. I'm not sure if I agree with TruthIsAll's technique but the dialogue is interesting nonetheless. Rhobite 12:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read all of it yet, but what strikes me are:

1. the null hypothesis would be not making a hypothesis, or getting as close as possible. saying that there wasn't fraud (that the vote count is correct and the exit polls are incorrect) is not the null hypothesis. As people have pointed out what we have is a surprisingly low correlation between the exit polls and the vote count. That's the null hypotheses; a.k.a minimum message length or occam's razor - no speculation.
2. People say "that's all we have", are the exit polls and the vote counts. That's not true. we have irregularities that, when taken into account (when the vote count is adjusted by them), make the discrepancy more probable. What else could we expect to have? What else would there be to explain the discrepancy? Evidence that either the vote count or the exit polls were irregular. We have that, not all of it, ofcourse, how could we expect that? But a decent portion of it, including what seems like the vast majority of vote count irregularities in Ohio, for when the vote count is adjusted for all of the irregularites, the discrepancy is well within the margin of error. Thou, when the exit polls are adjusted for the irregularities in them (such as rejection rates), there remains more to be explained, rather than less. In any case, it's fallacious to say "all we have are the vote counts and the exit polls" Why does this article have so many subarticles, then? Kevin Baas^talk 20:35, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

You can't calculate correlation with the proportion data we have.. there's nothing to correlate. You can perform hypothesis testing. If you were testing Kerry's results in Ohio, for example, the null hypothesis would be P <= .485 where P is the population proportion sampled in the exit poll, and .485 is Kerry's actual vote tally, 48.5% (call it P0). The exit poll's result (call it p) was 52.1%, or .521. n = 1963. Standard error is then sqrt((.521)(.479)/1963) = 0.0113. However you need to compensate this because there can be error for both candidates. Mystery Pollster recommends multiplying by 1.7, so SE = 0.0192. 1.7 is the conservative multiple, he says some people multiply by 2, this would increase our assumed error even more. To get the test statistic (z-value) take (p-P0)/SE => (.521-.485)/0.0192 => 1.878. I rounded a little to show the intermediate numbers but that number is correct. Based on the Z-value of 1.878, the P-value = 0.03. It's low, but not low enough to reject the null hypothesis at a 99.5% significance level. This supports the Mystery Pollster's results. Freeman appears to have left out the 1.7 multiplier in his calculations.

These results don't even require additional explanations such as Kerry voters being more willing to answer polls, although I believe that's true as well. That test means that the unadjusted Ohio exit poll does not support the hypothesis that Kerry won more than 48.5% of the vote at a 99.5% level of significance. Rhobite 21:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding kerry voters being more willing to answer polls, I accept the null hypothesis, pending data to support an alternative hypothesis. The only data we have, which is, admittedly, rather sparse, suggests that it is more likely that bush voters were more willing to answer polls. However, The data is just to little, the MOE to large, the weight of that statistic, in the scope of things, negligible. That is, after incorporating it into the probability model, one is still very much at the null hypotheseis.

Regading the Ohio exit poll, I didn't work through all of your logic and math there, A little lazy, forgive me. The aggregate statistics is more information and gives a better estimate, as it incorporates more information. I was discussing on your talk page the probability that kerry won ohio OR florida OR both, OR neither AND new mexico and Nevada (I think NM & N are correct, I did it so long ago!), the most stastically relevant combinations, based on the exit polls and their MOE. When we're talking about explanations, we're talking about in the aggregate, so it's proper to consider the statistics in the aggregate; comprehensively. That is, although a given state may give us some hints as to what happened, as may another states, combining all those hints together, canceling out where they overlap (a or b = p(a) + p(b) - p(a) * p(b)), will produce a more informed and accurate picture. Kevin Baas^talk 23:27, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

As the Mystery Pollster explained here [10], Kerry had a lead in the exit poll but lost the vote tally in four states. In all four of these states, the poll/tally difference was within the recommended margin of error. What I did above was a test to see if there is evidence, at a high significance level, to support the hypothesis that Kerry "should have" received more than 48.5% of the vote in Ohio. BTW you should look at this graphic. It gives you some perspective - it should function as a reminder that you shouldn't focus on just these four states. For all we know (and remember that you are assuming Bush fraud), Kerry fraudulently won some states which should have gone to Bush. Rhobite 23:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

i missed this part of what you said before - i am not assumming bush fraud. i am not assuming any fraud. i am reporting the facts. the only thing i am assuming is good faith. Kevin Baas^talk 21:09, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I don't know what states you are talking, but I don't doubt that some states were within the margin of error. However, other states were not. Kevin Baas^talk 23:48, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Regarding that graphic, I also made a graphic some time ago, but it's a map, instead, and like this graph it just shows the raw % discrepancy, rather than the z-score. Thus, one should keep in mind that the MOE was smaller in the swing states. Of the few states where the exit polls showed higher more votes for kerry than the vote counts, none were outside the MOE. Kevin Baas^talk 23:55, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

And btw, I think that's an excellent graphic. Do you know if it's GFDL? I think it would be nice on the exit polls page, with some description. We'd need someone to verify the data, ofcourse. Kevin Baas^talk 00:05, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Regarding correlation, perhaps I was being a bit imprecise with the term. More precisely, I meant that they have a unexpectedly low information redundancy. The "explanation" lacking is the information that is in one and not the other. That's where investigation and analysis comes in - finding where that information is; finding that information. Kevin Baas^talk 23:46, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

No, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico were the only four states in which Kerry won the exit poll but lost the election. As Mark Blumenthal showed, all four were within the margin of error. Which states do you believe were outside the margin of error?

You've said that MOE is less in swing states a couple times, but I don't understand what you mean. Did they use larger sample sizes there? MOE is dependent on the sample size, sample proportion, and desired confidence level. And MOE is actually highest when the sample proportion is 50%, so if sample sizes are the same then MOE will be the highest in so-called swing states.

They used a larger sample size in swing states, with a stated goal of lowering the MOE; of having a more accurate estimate there. I don't know why you got a p*(1-p) there in the formula, and it seems rather counter-intuitive. At a 100% sampling rate, one has perfect information redundancy (in theory), and thus zero error, while at 0% sampling rate, one has no information redundancy, and thus undefined (closer in concept to "infinite" than "zero"; as likely to be zero as any other number, and positive definite.) error. Fact is, the used a larger sample size (proportion), and therefore the exit polls in those state ARE, statistically/informationally speaking, closer to the how people voted. This is regardless of any systematic bias: as the sampling approaches the limit of a complete sample, the affect of systematic bias approaches zero. Kevin Baas^talk 00:51, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

The graph is from this article. I don't see any free licenses, so I assume that the image is copyrighted and unusable here. You could make a similar one if you wanted, I think it just uses Freeman's data and the official results. Rhobite 00:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any licenses whatever, so I assume the null hypothesis. One can always email the guy and ask. Kevin Baas^talk 00:56, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I wanted to know. It does make sense to use a larger sample size in swing states. Regardless, the four states I mentioned are within the margin of error, taking into account the sample size. As for your p*(1-p) question, that is part of the formula for margin of error of a sample proportion. The full formula is Z*sqrt((p)*(1-p)/n). Z is the Z-value for your desired confidence level, e.g. if you want a 95% confidence level you'd find Z[0.05/2] = 1.96. p is the sample proportion x/n, and n is the sample size. If you try various values of p in this formula you'll find that p=.5 has the highest standard error. Rhobite 01:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well if that's the formula you're using, then I'm not interested in the result. Kevin Baas^talk 02:10, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

I must have been reading you wrong, I looked here, and found that p is the expectation or mean, what you called the sample proportion, which I interpreted as the proportion of the whole that the sample is. Apparently you didn't pick up on this misunderstanding. Whatever the popular terminology, I am interested in the result where p represents the expectation, as described in the given link. Kevin Baas^talk 02:22, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Oh geez, I completely misread you, forgive me. I read friggin' dsylexic. I saw sample size where sample proportion was and vice versa, where you were discussing swing states. Kevin Baas^talk 02:25, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Arnbeck's latest and greatest

Remember when we removed the line about Cliff Arnebeck et. al. having withdrawn their OH Supremem court case re: irregularities, and seeking a federal case, pending more info? Here's the latest:

Arnebeck: "Three days after we did the voluntary dismissal (of Moss. v Bush) I filed a motion to intervene in a federal pending case to essentially proceed with the same litigation and take these emergency depositions of Bennet and Blackwell. We're hoping to get into this federal case and prove the fraud and all the civil rights conspiracies.

"And if the case we selected is not available because the judge won't let us in, we intend to file additional litigation. We are intending to broaden the investigation to prove how the votes were stolen all over the country." [11]

Here's the case he's trying to join:

Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell

U.S. District District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:04-cv-01055

Here is a PDF of the actual filing pdf.

Here is all the documentation of the case [12].

This case was filed on election day. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow. (I hope the federal judge(s) make(s) rulings based on reasonable interpretations of the law.) I think this should be put in the timeline and possibly the Moss v. Bush article.

still a npov dispute?

is there still a npov dispute somewhere? the tag is still up, but i havent seen any disputes in a long time. Kevin Baas^talk 21:10, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately the best way to learn of the details of a dispute is to remove the disputed/pov header, if there is a dispute someone will put it back (and hopefully grace the talk page). zen master T 23:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put it there. I still have big problems with this page, but no time to edit it. I'm happy that the exit poll section has improved, though. If people want to remove the NPOV tag that's fine. Rhobite 00:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and removed the npov header. zen master T 02:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found a wiki: "civicaction" A link from here, or no?

[13] A link from here, or no? opinions? Kevin Baas^talk 03:39, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Rep Feney response to Clint Curtis allegations?

I was just wondering if Florida Representative Feny has every officially responded to the Clint Curtis conspiring to write vote switching software allegations? Anyone have any info on that? zen master T 04:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To include?

(I copied this from Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_vote_suppression#To_include.3F, in light of the fact that the disputed info was recently put into this article. Kevin Baas^talk 03:41, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC))

There is a lot of specific info out there on freepress and other sources, should all of those be integrated into this article and if so, how? Kevin Baas^talk 00:37, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Something should be included in this article about the dozens of GOP rented vans which had their tires slashed by five Kerry-Edwards campaign staffers, including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democratic politicians on the night before election day. Criminal charges have been filed, and the case is currently ongoing. 1, 2, 3 --BaronLarf 21:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is about disenfranchisement. That did not disenfranchise any voters. Kevin Baas^talk 17:59, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I thought the article was about voter suppression. Tire-slashing of get-out-the-vote vehicles obviously had voter suppression as a motive. --BaronLarf 18:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not suppress votes. The motive is unclear, most likely it was an expression of extreme discontent with the policies of the Bush administration. The motive, anyways, is irrelevant. This article is not about motives. Nowhere in the article are motivations discussed. Only empirical phenomena; facts and data regarding votes and lack thereof. Notice that the scale of each irregularity is in the thousands of votes. At most, the tire slashing could have affected a handfull of votes, but there are no indications that it affected any. A ratio of at least a thousand to at most 20 is 500 to 1. On average each irregularity is covered by less than 500 words. Thus, to put this event in representative proportion, it word recieve, were there actually indications that it suppressed votes, at best, less than a word. Representing things out of proportion is a form of POV/bias. This is not about people being angry or sad, or what have you. It's about popular suffrage. If you can find voting irregularities that affected in the range of at least a thousand votes, then they belong here, but guesses of motivation, or discussion about motivation, or anything of the sort, even in regard to votes that were actually suppressed and where comparatively significant in quantity of votes affected with reasonable certainty, does not. Kevin Baas^talk 14:26, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Intro should convey potential for millions of votes switched

The intro should convey the possibility that millions upon millions of votes could have been switched (through sketchy voting machines and central tabulation computers plus all the other techniques). "40,000 incidents" doesn't convey that, I kind of confuses the issue additionally. What do people think? zen master T 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm against speculation, esp. in the intro. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:21, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Speculation, huh? If Kerry really won the election millions of votes would have had to be switched, right? The majority of evidence indicates the vote machines and central tabulation computers contributed the most to the switches, though vote suppression was likely another big factor. How else were the exit polls so far off? zen master T 18:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, speculation.

"If Kerry really won the election, millions of votes would have had to be switched, right?"

Technically a valid argument, but how do you know your initial premise that Kerry should have won in the first place? As for exit polls, they are definetely not evidence that proves Kerry won. For example, did you know that every presidential election since 1988 shows exit polls overstating Democratic support? Although one cannot rule out fraud, there are many other plausible explanations besides fraud. And what majority of evidence? There is no direct evidence to any of this. All you can prove is that there existed circumstances that would have made it extremely easy to fraudulently manipulate the vote. There is no evidence that indicates what you say. You start out assuming there were switches made in the first place; what evidence do you have of these switches besides what you see in the exit polls? I personally believe that significant fraud occured in the election, but I must rest that on a belief and a gut feeling from the few facts that we do know about the election and those responsible for counting our vote. --kizzle 20:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Huh, what are you guys talking about? The preponderance of election controversy and iregularity evidence is that millions of Kerry votes were switched by vote software and vote tabulation machines from Republican owned companies. You guys are starting to sound like (subtle) anti vote fraud propaganda? Diebold, hello? What is this article about if not that? zen master T 22:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The known facts. I am anti vote fraud propaganda insofar as propaganda refers to distortion/embellishment/speculation/what have you. I am all for the dissemination of confirmable factual information regarding the irregularities. As far as I can tell, everything in this article catogry is exactly that. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:52, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

It is a confirmable fact there is/was a potential by Republicans or others to affect millions of votes in the 2004 election. Agree or disagree? Note the title of this section is "convey the potential". zen master T 23:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a speculation. or whatever you want to call it, a "potential". Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:01, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I could very well state the potential that i'm mickey mouse, but i'd make a stronger argument for it by stating all of the relevant circumstances, and a reader can then calculate, from those circumstances, the liklihood that i'm mickey mouse. so to, with potential. it is not our job to analyze or hypothesize, or state potentials. it is our job to state the empirical, what is known to have happened, not what is known to be able to happen or be able to have happened. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:07, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

That's not speculation and your mickey mouse example is rather inapplicable given the content of this article. What I want to add to the intro is summarize the sum total of all the controversies and irregularities to convey the scale of the issue. Can we do something like that? zen master T 00:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to portray the approx. scale, and I think the phrase "massive fraud" does a good job of doing so. If you're interested in an estimate, i'd suggest Moss v. Bush, they're examined 15 of the 88 counties so far, and have, in their most conservative estimate, a little over 100,000. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:49, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Arnebeck et al. have also stated their intention to extent their investigation beyond ohio. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:50, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

The point is that through republican owned voting machine companies it goes from hundreds of thousands to millions easily. This article is about the overall controversy and irregularity (not just OH), so why not include a sense of scale in the intro? zen master T 00:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because you're pulling the numbers out of your ass. --kizzle 01:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Have you read this article? You are personally attacking me rather than focusing on the issue, that is what propaganda bots do. Here is some lite reading for you and everyone [14] zen master T 05:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, Zen. And we are focsing on the issue of neutrality, which is an important issue. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:35, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Zen, your statement "millions of votes could have been switched" is not based upon any evidence that directly supports such a claim, only that the exit polls are off and that the voting companies are shady in general. If that's our criteria for including "potentials", why couldn't I have said "It is possible Karl Rove paid off John Kerry to intentionally lose the election." We all know Karl Rove's antics, and John Kerry did lose the election, so that sentence to me seems equally as valid as yours. By including such "potentials", we abandon the potential for neutrality. I'm not saying abandon your belief, but recognize it is a belief and not a theory. Let us, in the article, stick to what we do know and leave the reader to come up with their own potentials. --kizzle 17:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)--kizzle 17:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

It is a theory based upon strong evidence. Were you a psychology major? If you don't include info or allegations that isn't abandoning neutrality, that is burying it. zen master T 22:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do you possess that directly supports millions of votes being switched. And if all you have is exit polls, I suggest you read in detail Mystery Pollster's site. --kizzle 04:00, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

TruthIsAll (Andrew Tanenbaum) has completely debunked "Mystery pollster", read the democraticunderground.com site sometime (URL provided above). zen master T 05:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I'm kobeisguilty on DU, and I have had several discussions with TIA... his analysis of MP isn't the greatest and at best doesn't "completely debunk" his viewpoint because he treats statistics like common mathematical proofs using definite integers, when statistical figures are not as finite. MP doesn't say that there wasn't fraud, just that the exit polls are too blunt of an instrument to definitively rely on as evidence for fraud. If you are so sure about this Zen, then answer me this: How do you explain that every presidential election since 1988 has overstated democratic support? And if you answer that republicans have been doing it since then, you better have evidence of such phenomena (is that a word? :) ) that doesn't include the mere existence of voting machines back then. Remember, Diebold bought AccuVote in 2002. --kizzle 05:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Increasing the scope of the issue does not diminish already known facts (absent evidence). zen master T 06:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As long as you're aware of what scope the facts allow. --kizzle 06:19, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Your awareness differs from mine apparently. The larger question is why isn't there an investigation on the potential for massive election fraud? Certainly by any measure the controversies and irregularities are more than enough to warrant a massive investigation as oppose to say sweeping everything under the rug? zen master T 06:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I only wish there would be an investigation, as there is much to doubt. All I am taking issue with is your assuredness of the possibility of fraud where no evidence indicates such concreteness about such a belief.

So you support an investigation but don't think it's reasonable to consider the possibility of fraud? That is illogical. zen master T 06:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I believe that fraud occured, it is just a matter of what actual evidence I have to support this belief that is in question. One can easily argue that an environment existed which would make fraud highly easy to accomplish, but one does not have evidence of the actual fraud occuring.--kizzle 06:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

You also agree an investigation should occur, which is more than a belief. It is notable, factual and relevant to state in the intro that there exists or did exist a potential by Republicans to "steal" millions of votes in the 2004 election. zen master T 07:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want such an investigation because of its ability to uncover new evidence which could change my belief into a conclusion. --kizzle 15:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

The article is not about potentials to steal votes. The article is about irregularites that are definitively known to in fact have occured. Zen, to put possibilities in the article is to weaken it. People will read that and think that the rest of the info in the article is as unsupported as that. People who come to the article apt to disbelieve will focus on the weakest point, and ignore the rest of the article, based on that. It's stupid, but it's what people do, pretty reliably. It will make the article less credible; in effect, it is the same as removing large chunks of data from the article. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:40, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my proposal, where the intro currently says there are allegations of forging vote totals, we should add a caveat or tangential allegation about the alleged existance of a potential to illegally affect millions of votes in the 2004 election. Is that more clear? zen master T 08:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why millions? Why not tens of millions? --kizzle 15:17, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

ohio re-recount

Anyone know the status on the "how many times do i have to count it?" "once, ofcourse. the thing is that you haven't done that yet. i don't know what you were doing before, but it sure wasn't what the law calls "counting", although it certainly did use up a lot of money and time." anyone have an update? i haven't been keeping track. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 05:18, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Racial discrimination and other bias

I updated the link to the US Commission on Civil Rights report for 2000 and made a slight change to the wording, that may be controversial so I'm adding this to defend it. In the sentence "the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights determined that, in Florida in 2000, 54 percent of the ballots discarded as "spoiled" were cast by African Americans," I changed determined to estimated. Determined implies absolute certainty, while report states that number is "based on estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual precinct data." Also the Dissenting Statement, included in the report, strongly attacks the statistical methods used in arriving at that number along with the fairness and objectivity of the report overall. [15]

Fraud

Firstly, I haven't gone through the entire article yet, but from just the intro I'm a little bothered. It seems to focus entirely on irregularities that would benefit bush over kerry. There are of course allegations/evidence of the articles namesake occurring that would benefit kerry over bush. Would this not deserve a mention in the intro? If not shouldn't this be named '2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities benefiting Bush'. As is, it should include information of -all-. Right? -bro 172.157.33.19 5 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

It focuses on all of the irregularities, without bias. problem is, 99% of all irregularities happen to favor bush. that is no fault of the editors of thsi page, and there is nothing they can do about it. (i.e., dont' shoot the messenger) Kevin Baas^{talk: new}

How exactly, do we know, or how -would- we know what irregularities favor which candidate? -bro 172.144.83.113 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

I believe the case of the election workers convicted of slashing GOP 'GOTV' vans' tires is already mentioned. Are there other, specific examples of irregularities that occurred that you can relate here, or wish to add to the article? Kevin's point re: 99% of proven irregularities favoring Bush is determinant here. -- RyanFreisling @ 5 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

See above. -bro 172.144.83.113 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Do you have specifics? -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

See below. -bro 172.153.6.49 6 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

Ok, after reading through it, it definitely needs a NPOV tag at least. The fact that there are -no- mentions of complaints from the R's in the article is really bad. I'm going to wait a few days for some comments, and hope someone else does it if there are none, but I will otherwise. -bro 172.157.33.19 5 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

See above. I assume you're being playful and not intentionally evasive, given your having prompted this discussion in the first place. -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was just trying to point you to where I've addressed both parts of your question above, the "Kevin's point re: 99% of proven irregularities favoring Bush is determinant here" one, and the why I haven't added content one. -bro 172.153.6.49 6 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

there are no mentions from r's about it because r's have nothing to say about it. that is, they ahven't said anything, besies in the forum of the electoral contest: 2004_U.S._presidential_election_recounts_and_legal_challenges#Ohio:_U.S._Congress_electoral_contest in which, effectively, they didn't say anything, in that none of their arguments were logically valid. In other words, they choose to remain silent, and it would be partial of us to interfere with that right. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} July 5, 2005 11:04 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, theres been plenty of accusations flying from both sides. My problem is that I do my best to not touch obviously controversial topics, and my hope is that bringing certain things to the attention of the talk page that the articles would be improved. But, I'm not asking or trying to force anyone else into doing the research either, but I do think if its not done, the NPOV tag is needed. -bro 172.144.83.113 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

As the article stands now, the entirely significant majority of fraud allegations are of republican fraud, and thus the intro reflects this. Clearly you have some incidents in mind of democratic fraud as well, if you add some of them into the article, then it is a lot easier to justify including this change in the intro. --kizzle July 5, 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Yes, as the article stands now thats the case, which is why I mentioned the tag. I also explained my reasons for not wanting to touch this, and other articles like it. I also mentioned that I'm not trying to force anyone else to go digging. In case anyone does, take a look into voter registrations, voting by felons, dead people, pets etc. My main concern as stated above is this idea that these irregularities somehow favor Bush. I don't see how thats in any way provable. Although I wouldn't mind to see someones proof if they have it. -bro 172.153.6.49 6 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

I am aware of the Dick Tracy and Mary Poppins registrations by the democrats, selling votes for crack cocaine by democrats, but besides these two incidents, I honestly don't know what you're talking about, and this doesn't come from a lack of familliarity of the 2004 election. Are you simply objecting to there being little representation of democratic fraud on here without knowing anything about incidents of democratic fraud not already covered here? --kizzle July 6, 2005 03:16 (UTC)

Two things really. Firstly, I don't believe it can be said with any certainty who any fraud/irregularities et al. would benefit. Secondly, was the lack of such irregularities that have been brought up by R's. Something else that would fit, if you wanted to dig into it, would be the situation in WA. It centered around the governors race, due to the closeness of that race, but the problems existed and certainly had an effect on the pres. race. As I've mentioned, I do know of many such problems across the country, and I've mentioned a few here, but again, I do not really wish to edit this, and attributing such things to benefit a certain candidate isn't accurate. -bro 172.139.207.115 6 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

I disagree. And WA is a different election entirely, and so not included here. If you don't wish to edit it, you should at least cite specific examples here in talk, and participate in the discussion. You need to engage in the process, and work to resolve your concerns before threatening to put an accuracy tag on the article. Without it, such an unsubstantiated tagging would be rightly reverted on the basis of your denial of the correlative and Appeal to (im)probability. To address whether when addressing these incidents there is a 'real' inability to conclude the likely beneficiary of the cited instances, I'll ask again - are there any instances where you feel that the conclusion of the likely beneficiary of an instance of irregularity is inaccurate, or made in error with insufficient evidence? -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Hm, I coulda sworn that I -was- discussing. I wasn't threatening anything. I thought I expressed my concerns multiple times to multiple people. As I've stated above, there is absolutely no accurate way to determine who any instance of fraud/irregularities/whatever you want to call them will benefit, if this is incorrect, (also as I stated above) I would certainly be willing to learn. If you are asking me to cite links for this or that, I tried to make it clear that I was unwilling to edit this (and other equally controversial topics) and to offer suggestions to those that -are-. I've pointed out a few generalities, but if i were to start googling away, I guarantee we'd be in an edit war in no time. Mainly due to the odd collection of websites that are used as cites in the article, one could use equally odd ones that point the finger in the opposite direction. I'd rather not do that. As for the WA election being different somehow, I do not understand your point, it was Novermber 2nd, 2004, people cast their ballots for pres as well as gov at that time, allegations of fraud, and more than allegations have been made. I don't believe you are saying that those votes would somehow be restricted only too the gov race, so I'm not sure I know your point there. -bro 172.139.207.115 6 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

The WA election belongs on a different page because of the scope of the article, which is 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities, not gubernatorial races. As for odd collection of sources, if you mean dubious or unsubstantiated, please let us know which ones have been shown to be false. It seems that simply the lack of allegations of Democrats committing voter fraud is troubling you, yet you have not offered any examples of this (with the exception of the WA election, which does not belong here). --kizzle July 6, 2005 21:39 (UTC)

Point is, this article deals with 2004 Presidential Election controversies and irregularities. WA doesn't fit. You must do more than make general (unsubstantiated) suggestions - you must point out what you specifically feel are generalities. To do as you have done and voice a concern, without making any specific recommendations or concerns, does not help Wikipedia become better - it's just lobbying. And assuming an edit war will erupt is not Assuming good faith of the community - a no-no if you wnt your opinion to be heard. If you are unwilling to participate in good faith, and are unwilling to edit, I don't see how you can have a real impact. -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

I think I need an explanation on how fraud in a presidential election, which the WA one was, and the gov. race was included in, does not merit mention. The rest I've addressed elsewhere. Assuming good faith is all well and good, reality is better. I'd like not to test the waters, thanks. -bro 172.168.154.58 6 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

The WA election was Gubernatorial, not Presidential. And vis-a-vis reality, I cannot find any real points you have raised that can be responded to editorially in the real article, so this discussion is now circular. -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

No, it was the general election, containing pres and gov and others. The problems were raised by the gov. candidates, and addressed as such since it was so close. Circular indeed. -bro 172.168.154.58 6 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

This article does not focus on the general election. It is focused on the Presidential election. Is this the only specific objection you have? -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Bro, don't take his word for it... just look up at the top of your screen to the title of this page. --kizzle July 6, 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Are you guys being obtuse on purpose? The general election is called, uhh, general because it consists of the election of multiple positions, -including- presidential. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

Not being obtuse - just pointing out the scope of the article is not the scope you are describing here. This article is not about the entire general election - it is specifically about the Presidential election. It's that simple! -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

Yep, it's also that simple that the same problems brought up in regard to the recount for the gov. are the same problems that existed for the -entire- election. Same ballots, same bat time, same bat channel, same bat irregularities. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Sorry, but your snark just strangled your point. I have no idea what you're trying to say. The incidents raised in this article are most decidedly not the same issues as reported in the WA election. They were covered, tracked and (where possible) resolved independently, in a state (not federal) context. If you again have examples to cite, please contribute - otherwise you verge ever closer to pure hyperbole. It is not educational or informative to create a counterpoint between the U.S. Election for President and the WA governor's election to satisfy an unsubstantiated desire to be 'fair and balanced'. Leave that to FOX. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

Sigh, one last time. If you read about the problems in WA, they are about the problems in the -election-. Now, what is that election? Presidential, gov. and other various seats. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. This article's focus and the nature of elections are both clear. This article does not cover the entire 'general election', it is focused specifically on the Presidential election. They are separate elections, not just separate seats, whether or not the ballot used is the same ballot for all elections in the general election or not - and given the wide range of irregularities covered herein, I'll say it again (also for one last time) this article's focus is clear and appropriate. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

Again, wrong. Trying to exclude the problems in this election from the presidential, when it is irrevocably linked, is beyond silly. They are not -seperate- in any sense other than being seperated by a line on paper, or screen. The articles focus is on the presidential election, which this was, as it was others as well, just as in the majority across the country. I don't believe its possible to dumb it down any further. This is my last attempt. Keep on keepin' on. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Thanks for voicing your opinion. We obviously disagree, and disagreement is the beginning of understanding. It's unfortunate that you won't be participating in the process, and helping the article to improve. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you have to state the same thing multiple (oh so multiple), times, the inability to converse with said person is shown. Along those same lines, my previous comment was that it was my last attempt to explain that particular point. I've been around far too long to allow myself to be run off by tediousness. This is also related to the parroting of the assume good faith et al, above. My comment about the inevitable edit war that would follow, which seems to have been verified by the following conversation, wasn't an attempt at slandering you. It takes two to tango, and I would have been the second. I really think much of our conversation could have been much condensed if we both read each others comments more thoroughly. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Rather than a meta-conversation about our conversation, or accusing me of 'parroting' a core principle of wiki (to participate in good faith as an editor), I would only direct you again towards editing as the only real outlet for your wistful 'would-have-been' ideas. This is in no way an edit war between us and proves nothing of the sort. Instead of circular 'talk', why not try contributing your ideas to the article? If your difference of opinion is really centered around the relationship of the WA election and the Presidential election (as was only voiced by you after numerous requests for you to be specific with your concerns) it seems to me that there are many ways you could constructively contribute - and in no way have you been dissuaded from participating. Make your own choice. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

Sadly, it doesn't seem as though you took my advice of reading comments carefully to heart. Parroting (ie repeating) of a core principle is exactly what occurred, not bad in itself, yet quite tedious. I never stated -this- was an edit war, just that it has certainly confirmed that one would occurr had I edited. I've answered the rest previously ad nauseum. Please, read what I type, not what you think I'm trying to say. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

I did - and I did not accept your premise. My response did not reflect a lack of consideration with your point, just a disagreement. That's where the value is - not in personal attacks (of which I am not accusing you). -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Ok people, clearly the point isn't getting across. Lets make it a bit simpler.

1. Bro wants to put in info about WA Democrat fraud allegations in the Gubernatorial Election.
2. This page = Presidential Election
3. Bro's info = Gubernatorial Election
4. Bro's info = Out of scope of this page (from 2 and 3)
5. Bro's info = Is about the General Election
6. However, this page = Only Presidential Election

--kizzle July 7, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

This really isn't this difficult. The election in WA, it was the PRESIDENTIAL AND GUBERNATORIAL (and others) election. They are one and the same. No difference. Can you tell me a difference between ballots cast in the gov. race and the pres. race? Were they the same ballots? Same election? -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

To say there are no differences between the two elections (one including the entire U.S. and the other the highest state office) is patently, utterly false. Besides the obvious fact that the population of Washington is not the same voting population as that of the U.S., and that the campaigns, figures of note, etc., were and are decidedly different (and in this article, included on the basis of relevance to the Presidential election), ballots are not by any means the entirety of an election, and the irregularities in this article are not exclusive to balloting. Be fair - the vast majority of issues described in this article are fundamentally different in their applicability to the WA governor's election and the Presidential election. That's why the article focuses on the Presidential election, and does not include detailed coverage of issues specific to the WA governor's race. This article must be more specific - it is not here to cover the complete set of elections conducted during the general election. It is the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article. Some overlap on specific issues and irregularities, yes... that's just logical, and if the relevance is there, that info belongs! Make the case for those examples! -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

This is another reading conflict. The issue is the irregularities in the WA election that occurred on Nov. 2nd. This included the Gov. race, the reason it became so big is because it was so close. This does -not- somehow corner it to being specific only to that race. Here, I'll toss out the first link google spit along with a quote. [[16]]

An unknown number of provisional voters, some of whom may not even have been registered to vote, improperly put their ballots directly into vote-counting machines at polling places, King County's elections superintendent said yesterday. Once those ballots went into the machines, there was no way to separate them from legitimate ballots.Provisional ballots are given on Election Day to voters who show up at the wrong precinct or whose registration is in question. The ballots are supposed to be put inside two envelopes, with the voter's name, address and signature on the outside, and counted only after the voter's status is verified.Officials may never know exactly how many provisional ballots were improperly fed into voting machines, but a current review of polling-place records will give some indication of how widespread the problem was, county Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens said.

As you can see, these are problems with the -election-. Which is to say the Presidential Election and all the others that were going on. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

Again, your attribution that I misread you is false. Can you help me understand why you wouldn't include this, properly written in the article? Your citation of this example is relevant to the presidential election. Are there any updates since this article was published in January? -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

The misreading part isn't some condemnation, just an acknowledgement that you are arguing against something I've not said. I've already addressed my reluctance to edit the article directly many times. I would be there are quite a few updates on that specific piece. There are also many more allegations regarding the election problems there. If you wish to read up on them, try keywords such as 'washington election fraud' or 'king county election fraud' etc. Theres bunches and bunches. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

While I appreciate the google advice, your reluctance to edit is to the detriment of the article. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

That's actually very nice of you. Heh, a good demonstration of why I'm reluctant, would be the GWB article. Ran into quite a little skirmish when I added content from a link that was already in the article (not put there by me). Thought that would be as uncontroversial as possible, but it seems everything is argued when there are so many people of differing POV's around. Anywho, that was nice of you. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

I think you're both right. I agree with bro that the challenges arising from the Washington gubernatorial election should be included in Wikipedia. I agree with RyanFreisling that this article has been set up to concentrate on more limited issues. The Washington race is described in detail in Washington gubernatorial election, 2004. Based on that article, I've added a link and a one-sentence summary to the 2004 U.S. election voting controversies article, which has wider but shallower coverage. Incidentally, Kerry won Washington by more than 200,000 votes. That margin couldn't possibly have been overcome by any of the arguments the Republicans raised in the gubernatorial race. As a result, I don't think anyone contends that any irregularities or improprieties in Washington affected the allocation of the state's electoral votes. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Well, firstly I didn't know that this article was suppose to address issues that may have changed the outcome only. Secondly, I don't know how its possible to seperate overall voting irregularities into effecting this or that race only. Now that I know that the other article exists, I'd actually like to see this, and the WA gov. article merged with it. But I'm not going to push it. -bro 172.172.46.106 7 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Sproul

Need to ensure we accurately represent this breakdown of Nathan Sproul's malfeasance - [17] [18]

holy crap. nice one, ryan. --kizzle July 5, 2005 19:20 (UTC)

"In the months before the 2004 presidential election, a firm called Sproul & Associates launched voter registration drives in at least eight states, most of them swing states. The group--run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party--had been hired by the Republican National Committee.

"Sproul got into a bit of trouble last fall when, in certain states, it came out that the firm was playing dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote: concealing their partisan agenda, tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and shredding Democratic registration forms.

"The scandal got a moderate amount of local coverage in some states--and then the election was over. Now anyone who brought up Nathan Sproul, or any of the other massive crimes and improprieties committed on or prior to Election Day, was shrugged off as a dealer in "conspiracy theory." It seems that Sproul did quite a lot of work for the Republicans. Exactly how much did he do? More specifically, how much did the RNC pay Sproul & Associates?

"If you went online last week to look up how much money Sproul received from the Republicans in 2004, you would have found that, according to the party (whose figures had been posted by the Center for Responsive Politics), the firm was paid $488,957. In fact, the RNC paid Sproul a great deal more than that. From an independent study of the original data filed by the Republicans with the Federal Election Commission, it is clear that Sproul was paid a staggering $8.3 million for its work against the Democrats.

"{...} there are some big surprises buried in the paperwork. It turned out that the RNC paid Sproul not only for their pre-election work, but also paid them for work after the election. According to their Year-End Report, filed on Jan. 28, 2005, the RNC paid Sproul for "Political Consulting" in December--long after all the voter registration drives had ended. And two months later, when the RNC filed their amended Year-End Report on May 3, the dates of those December expenditures mysteriously changed. A payment of $210,176, once made on Dec. 20, was changed to Dec. 22. A payment of $344,214, initially recorded on Dec. 22, was changed to Dec. 9. As to why Sproul was being paid in December, and why the dates were changed, one can only speculate. But it may be worth noting that the Ohio recount took place from Dec. 13 through Dec. 28.

Because these amendments were made in 2005, the Center for Responsive Politics' website mistakenly allocated that money to the 2006 cycle. When we informed them of these missing numbers yesterday, CRP was quick to adjust them. They also included two more expenditures: a $323,907 payment for more "Political Consulting" (10/12/04) and $450,257 for "Mailing Costs" (10/04/04). The documents also suggest that the RNC may have changed the dates of nine payments to suggest expenditures in 2005, thereby shifting focus from the 2004 election. Even if that mistaken date is just a typo, it is, to say the least, not likely that they made the same mistake in nine uniquely dated items for 2004.

In any case, all the payments by the RNC to Sproul add up to a whopping $8,359,161--making it the RNC's eighth biggest expenditure of the 2004 campaign."

I went to the Las Vegas Sun website and searched their archives for "Voters Outreach of America" and for "America Votes". They had the stories of the October 2004 discovery of the trashing of Democratic forms, but no story since Election Day. Does anyone know whether the investigation has gotten anywhere? Back in October there was talk of criminal prosecution. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

OHIO

I always wondered why, when I know for a fact, that early voting is allowed in the state of ohio, if done by absente ballot, and why when 90% of the people I called to register, 2 weeks before the elcetion had already voted by ballot, why were the absentee ballots disregarded as insignifigant?? other than the fact that most of these people had voted for kerry? - (anon) 14:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Noe, Lucas County and Ohio

Here's a report of Lucas County's irregularities, by and for Blackwell's administration, which points to some serious wrongdoing by Bernadette Noe, the wife of GOP fundraiser Bill Noe, now embroiled in the 'coingate' scandal. pdf

Bernadette Noe, who served dual roles as chairman for the Lucas County Republican Party and the Lucas County Board of Elections, sent twelve "partisans" into a warehouse on Election Day, according a memo authored by Ohio's Director of Campaign Finance Richard Weghorst who was present at the time.

The assertion is part of a comprehensive investigation prepared for Ohio Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell regarding reports of irregularities in Lucas County. The report found gross failures on the part of Ms. Noe's board in preparation for and administration of November's election.

{...}When the volunteers refused to leave the premises, Weghorst called the police, who then escorted the group away from the warehouse. It later emerged they had come at Ms. Noe's request.

A Diebold employee, Robert Diekmann, was also present at the warehouse that night.

Noe an advocate for Diebold

Ms. Noe was an advocate of Diebold's optical scan software as chair of the Lucas County Board of Elections. In April 2004, she and another fellow Republican board member voted to approve a $350,000 contract with Diebold to lease machines for the election. The county was forced the lease the equipment after a deadlock and a rebuke from Blackwell.

"It's going to cost us more than we thought it would, but it's going to be a fair election," Ms. Noe said at the time. "I am confident with the system we will have with Diebold."

"Every vote is going to get counted, and it is going to be an efficient election," she added.

The contract was no-bid. After Democrats on the board revealed a cheaper bid from another company, the Lucas County board was forced to open the contract for bidding, over Ms. Noe's objections.

Possibly involved with ballot tampering

Reminiscent of the ballot sticker controversy in Clermont County, Ohio, Ms. Noe was involved in an incident through which Republican volunteers were brought in to "assist" processing returned voter confirmation postcards. On her authority and that of several other board members, partisan volunteers were allowed to copy the returned cards.

They were subsequently caught by a Lucas County Democratic official peeling the return stickers off the voter confirmation cards, and were told to leave. Weghorst's inquiry found no evidence they had been supervised.

The investigator's report was submitted in April 2005.

Rep. Conyers' response

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is expected to ask the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel today.

"The facts that have come out indicate a culture of corruption in the Ohio Republican Party," Conyers in a statement to RAW STORY. "An investigation such as this, which is rife with conflicts of interest, begs for the appointment of an independent prosecutor who would be immune from the partisan gamesmanship we have seen so far."

Conyers' letter to the Justice Department will be posted shortly. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)