It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kerry/Edwards Ohio Strategery

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Florida, 2000. (one example).



Not so, except for right wing propaganda that attempted to discredit exit polls, as for 2004.

Find an error outside the US electoral system (where elections are not corrupt) and you will add the first increment of plausibility to anti-exit poll arguments.




posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Thanks for the links. One thing before I answer your points: Who did you vote for?


I voted for Bush, but of course my vote didn't count because New York's electoral votes went for John L. (sic) Kerry:

www.nydailynews.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Yes, of course, MaskedAvatar....as par.

Have the Exit Polls Been Wrong Before?

Whats your left-wing spin to the above?
As you so eloquently like to say: ..continued "obfuscation"?




seekerof



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
No, you continue to deal in spin, as you have rightly said that you do, on days that you can string sentences together.

I will continue to deal in facts.

Your bloggist misquoted entirely the state "best estimate" results for the exit polls cited.

Here's a better link, comprehensive as to sources:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Exit polls using the methodologies of 2 November have not been previously wrong, anywhere in the world.

Prove otherwise.


Exit polls have been wrong by a higher percentage than in this election before, but I think not in an election so close that it changed the projected winner. I think Bush 41 vs Clinton is an example.

Also, your premise is further mistaken because the methods used for the 2004 exit polls were new this Presidential election due to changes following the 2000 election. For example, in many cases the pollsters had to be so far away from the polling location (as to limit the perception of voter intimidation) that they weren't able to actually see if the person they were interviewing actually came out of the polling precinct. Also, a new company is conducting the polls (this from the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 1):


The two main tasks of the old VNS -- collecting actual election results and conducting exit polls -- have now been separated. Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International are conducting exit polls and collecting returns from sample precincts -- early indicators that give media organizations an idea of which way a particular state or city is headed. The Associated Press is separately responsible for reporting vote counts as they are tallied at county election sites.

...Edison and Mitofsky interviewers will speak to voters as they leave about 1,500 precincts, asking them whom they voted for and why. The "why" part will be analyzed later, but the "whos" will be tallied and shipped out to give news organizations a first look at where the race is headed....


[edit on 1/4/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Also, your premise is further mistaken because the methods used for the 2004 exit polls were new this Presidential election due to changes following the 2000 election.



This does not discredit the premise at all. If the methodology was different enough to be considered "new", then show where it had been wrong in its piloting.

Thanks nonetheless for taking up the argument on the scientific facts.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
This does not discredit the premise at all. If the methodology was different enough to be considered "new", then show where it had been wrong in its piloting.
...

How would piloting account for people lying about whom they voted for or that they even voted all?

If the exit polls are so infallable, why even bother counting the ballots? Instead of spending all that money on electronic vote tabulation systems, we could just rely on a few college students outside the polling places being paid minimum wage to interview like 1% of the voters to determine the winner...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Do the so-called claimed and asserted "scientific" accountings also take into account that the exit polls were asked mainly or were heavily weighted by women, etc.?

You can hang your pants on the exit polls, if you so deem to, but the truth of the matter is that voters do no lie when placing or making the vote. They, of course, can lie to pollsters. As asserted, historically, exit polls are not entirely full-proof.

Bottom line, despite the claims and assertions to the contrary, the voters did speak, and the results speak for themselves.

Btw, you, as others in question, can and do still have till January 6th. Please contact Mr. Conyers.





seekerof

[edit on 4-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
You have veered off the scientific and into the impractical. Exit polls continue to indicate fraudulence where it has occured, and coupled with real accounts of voter intimidation and programmed misallocation of resources and locking down counting facilities, all indications of fraud are present in 2004. As I have mentioned elsewhere it is the job of corrupt election officials and judges to cover this up.

I agree that it's essential to count ballots. But it no longer happens with credibility in the US.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Remember that exit polls exist and are paid for by the media for the sole purpose of getting a head start on reportage, not to check, confirm, dispute, etc. the actual tabulated results.

I think the argument that data gathered by a few people interviewing a small percentage of people who look like they just voted at a small percentage of precincts determined to be bellweather by "experts" then fed through a bunch of equations and models based totally on assuptions and "educated" guesses about the electorate being more accurate than the results tallied by counting all of the ballots cast in all of the precincts by professionals monitored by the press and representatives of all of the political parties is quite unbelievable. I would place it up there with "Bush and QE2 are lizards."



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Here is Steven Freeman's excellent paper on the unexplained exit poll discrepancy (University Of Pennsylvania) updated, for readers who are prepared to understand why exit polls are historically accurate:

www.appliedresearch.us...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
results tallied by counting all of the ballots cast in all of the precincts by professionals monitored by the press and representatives of all of the political parties



Here is where your argument falls apart totally:

1. The ballots are not counted by machines that leave no paper trail, they are tabulated by routines and open to manipulation through remote connections;

2. In many cases not all the ballots are counted, at all;

3. The lockouts of press and members of the public for the counting process in numerous counties, unique to 2004 and unlawful, is well and truly documented, as is the stonewalling and failure to provide documentation following legitimate enquiries under FOI laws.

Unfortunately, belief in your principles of fair counting in the US are blind dogma, no longer supported by democracy or due process.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Here's their strategy:

Use crack coc aine as payment to get people to register new voters.

www.cnn.com...

Now there's a novel idea


Trouble for Kerry was that crack users don't seem to make it to the polls in overwhelming numbers.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
It gladdens the heart that ATS continues to promote intelligent discussion such as the last contribution.

As a counterbalance, Bush himself has been a celebrated user. Doesn't seem to be a partisan issue.




posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
It gladdens the heart that ATS continues to promote intelligent discussion such as the last contribution.

As a counterbalance, Bush himself has been a celebrated user. Doesn't seem to be a partisan issue.



So, what's your beef? That was a hard news story from CNN showing how low the Kerry campaign and its minions would stoop to try to 'win' an election. And all you can say is some crap about what Bush was alleged to have done?

Typical democrat response is to answer fact with fluff.

It actually saddens my heart to see that you and others are still so mired in the past that you can't moveon (.org)
Get it? The name of that website actually refers to democrat's efforts to get people to quit talking about Clinton's problems and "move on".

How ironic


Maybe the dems can sell that URL to the republicans now?



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
You are locked into a bipartisan view of national politics. It seems to be all that you know. There is a forum for the kind of "fluff" that you describe, it's not this one.

Good day to you.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Here is Steven Freeman's excellent paper on the unexplained exit poll discrepancy (University Of Pennsylvania) updated, for readers who are prepared to understand why exit polls are historically accurate:

www.appliedresearch.us...



And here is Mickey Kaus's excellent take and findings concerning these over-flated exit polls:
Exit Poll Smoking Gun: Bloggers can attack with New Zeal!

And yes, I concur, electronic voting machines should have a paper-trail, but again, as I have asked before, how many people in Ohio used touch-screen voting machines? 13%, 25%, 50%, how many?





seekerof



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Sorry, there was nothing "excellent" about that at all - no analysis, no conclusions, and not even the capability of expressing the country of the "research" relied upon as an adjective.

But you are right about one thing, it was a "take" that took you right in.

Rather than your futile attempts at spin over and over, if you purport to have the answer to a question regarding the proportion of voters in a state who used voting machines on a given day, why not simply give it?

The investigators are currently following the punch card audit trail in Ohio. You would think voter intimidation and disenfranchisement and Blackwell's stonewalling and lies about all of that would be enough, but the public is apathetic. Congratulations to the dumbing down forces!

Ohio gets a big "F", the nation gets taken like you do, and it's business as usual in the Bush administration's corrupt land of booty:




Bookkeeping, Ohio style:

Counting votes is a form of bookkeeping, and recounts are a form of auditing. Now, we ask you, would you accept Ohio style bookkeeping from your accountant?

Suppose you decide to "recount" -- audit -- the books of your small business. You ask your supervisor of bookkeeping to let you examine the invoices, cancelled checks, receipts, to compare them with the "results" -- financial report -- he produced.

Ohio-style audit

You can't look at the cancelled checks, not right now anyway, because your bookkeeper is too "busy" with your audit.

Your bookkeeper tells you that he has to go in a private room to "work on" the invoices a little before he brings them to you.

Your bookkeeper says he will allow you to spot check only three percent of the records. He selects them for you. He does not randomly select them, but chooses the specific records according to a pre-ordained formula that he had before you asked for the audit.

Ohio-style bookkeeping would earn a failing grade in any accounting course. Black Box Voting awards Ohio an "F" on its election.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Seems to me that said "audit" could simply take those hand-turned in ballots and subtract them from total votes to arrive at approx. numbers of people who used electronic voting methods?
You see, your over-all assessment is that their was fraud, yet, when given the opportunity to present said evidences for such in a court of law (Ohio Supreme Court), they crumble or amount to nothing. If the evidences were so prevailing and pronounced, as you and others so claim, then theoretically, there should be no problems with presenting hard facts and evidences in the above mentioned court? How fairs such evidence presentation, currently?

Twice asked already, how many people in Ohio used touch-screen voting machines? 13%, 25%, 50%, how many?





seekerof

[edit on 4-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
OK, let's try a simple question then.

Where exactly does it say in the constitution or anywhere else that exit polls count for anything in an election. They are absolutely the variable in all this. There are no controls over them. They can be manipulated much easier than the actual votes (obviously!!!) to say what the pollster wants them to say.

It's a lot easier to imagine (Occam's Razor principal) pollsters wanting a result so badly that they either consciously or unconsciously bias their results to match their beliefs than it is to believe in some massive voter fraud.

Another simple question. Couldn't having a huge number of ATS points be simply a matter of not having anything else to do rather than being a measure of anything else meaningful? Think of that question in relation to all this discussion about exit polls.


[edit on 1/4/2005 by centurion1211]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join