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.

 

Proof exit polls were right, at least in Florida!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   
OK, I've made several posts regarding electronic voting and I think some people have thought I'm trying prove things that I'm not. So here are things I am trying to prove:

*Electronic voting is very unsecure and easily manipulatable. Especially when the programming of the machines is not regulated to the extent that it needs to be and , by law, does not have to be disclosed by the companies making them. Further problems arise given the fact that executives of these companies are BIG donors to one of the candidates.

*Voting machines were manipulated

*If the U.S. continues to move toward 100% electronic voting, we will continue to have an innaccurate voting process.

*The U.S. should not use electronic voting machines for elections

Things I don't give a crap about:

*Kerry being president

*Bush not being president

*A recount-This is part of my point, a recount isn't even possible since some of the voting machines don't keep a verifiable record of each vote


There has been a lot of talk about the exit polls since Tuesday, so I'll go ahead and give my opinion of them and some things that I am assuming based on logic:

*The exit polls were accurate or close to accurate -+2%, not way off like many people think. Historically, they are very accurate-the group doing these has very detailed demographic info that they use to make their polls represent the people who vote in that precinct

*News media spends tons of money (I think millions) on these in order to correctly report on the elections and to call each state based on statistical pollibilities.

*The exit poll numbers are supposed to remain within the news networks that pay for them, but get leaked, which is fine.

*When the "official" results started coming in and they were very different from what the news networks had leaked, they started getting nervous as hell, because nobody could believe the turnaround and everybody was wondering "what was wrong with the exit polls?". The news networks then started asking this question too, as if they were the public and not the ones who made them public.
*They continue to talk about the exit polls as if they had little to do with the whole world being under the impression that Kerry was going to win

*Since they are so nervously trying minimze their role in and the effect of the exit polls, they haven't stopped talking about how "decisive" Bush's win was and more importantly, they haven't been reporting on, or even investigating any of long list of irregularities in the official results of the election.

However, lots of other people, including myself, have been looking into all of this. There have been scattered reports of minor glitches and stuff reported on in local papers, couple thousand votes here, couple thousand there, nothing that would make a difference. While those are perfect examples of why we shouldn't use electronic voting, I think the official results are the most incriminating.

The following link ustogether.org... has the official results for Florida, divided into "counties using touch screen" and "counties using optical scan", as well as the vendor of the machines being used in that county. It then lists the registered voters as %Rep and %D of the total registered for each county, followed by the offical numbers taken with 98.6% of the vote in, also sorted into Dem and Rep. It then takes the official total for each county and lists what percentage of that would have been expected, based on the % of registered voters that were Dem or Rep and shows the %difference of the expected from the actual.

Here are some interesting findings:

*In the 15 touchscreen voting counties in Florida, there are no notable irregularities seen and in 13 of the 15, Dems gained what would be expected based on the registration percentages

*However, only in 7 of 52 optical scanner voting counties (15%), did the Dems gain what would be expected based on registration percentages and the Reps had several counties where they gained over 100% of what would have been expected, often well over that amount!

*Avg. gain in touchscreen counties was 8% over what you would expect based on Dem registration, including all 15 counties

*Avg. loss in op-scan counties was 16.6% under what you would expect based on dem registration, including all 52 counties

*If the op-scan counties would have experienced the 8% average gain, as the touchscrnn counties did, while applying the registration %s to the number of votes cast, you would get total of 281,143.

If you take this number and then add it to Kerry and subtract it from Bush, you would get:

Subtotal for Op-scan: B: 1,950,213 K: 1,445,675
Corrected Op-scan: B: 1,668,730 K: 1,727,158

Touchscreen totals: B: 1,845,876 K: 1,982,210

Adjustment: -281,143 +281,143

Corrected Totals: B: 3,514,606 K: 3,709,368
Percent Total: 48.7% 51.3%
Exit Polls: 49% 51%

NOT RIGGED MY ASS!!!

I'm checking Ohio, I'll post when I'm done with that. But I don't even care if that's like this(though I'm sure it is!) that can not be a coincidence!



[edit on 8-11-2004 by deeozz]




posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeozz
The following link has the official results for Florida...


This one?

ustogether.org...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
You lost, get over it. This is the same arguement I made when Clinton won in 92 and 96. I was wrong, Clinton won fair as square and he was President. I did not like him as a person, but I respected him as a President. The reason you can't get over it is because you just can't bear the thought that conservatives outnumber liberals in our country. Moral values not faulty voting machines won the election.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
It isn't about whether someone lost or won.

If the election was tampered with, as many believe, then it means we no longer have control over our nation and THAT is a much bigger issue than the two parties....

It would mean that we are no longer a free nation. As I've said, I sincerely hope that Bush won fair and square....because if he didn't, then we've got a MUCH bigger problem on our hands than who won or lost people....



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by deeozz
The following link has the official results for Florida...


This one?

ustogether.org...


Yes Rant, thanks, didn't realize I forgot to include it



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
You lost, get over it. This is the same arguement I made when Clinton won in 92 and 96. I was wrong, Clinton won fair as square and he was President. I did not like him as a person, but I respected him as a President. The reason you can't get over it is because you just can't bear the thought that conservatives outnumber liberals in our country. Moral values not faulty voting machines won the election.


This is too superficial. Sure, the typical “We lost, they cheated” or “We won, get over it” It is so not about who won or lost, it is a lot about “we the people” turning into “they’ll decide for us”. I am seeing many numbers in the electronic states that are not making sense and if Bush took another election and gets away with it, then our future is over. Even the republicans must look at this with an open mind – something is wrong and nothing is being done.

Don’t be ignorant.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
You lost, get over it. The reason you can't get over it is because you just can't bear the thought that conservatives outnumber liberals in our country. Moral values not faulty voting machines won the election.


Thank You Gazrok, unlike jrsdls, you aren't completely ignorant and can see that I'm not saying this because I like Kerry(AS I CLEARLY SAID IN MY POST)


Originally posted by jrsdls
This is the same arguement I made when Clinton won in 92 and 96. I was wrong, Clinton won fair as square and he was President. I did not like him as a person, but I respected him as a President.


How could you have made this same argument in 92 and 96? Were voting machines even used very much then? I didn't think they were. And did have data like this that shows that had the people who voted using one kind of machine(which was extremely irregular and across party lines) voted like the people using another kind of machine (which was similar to what one would expect based on registration expectations), then the results would resemble exit polls that were taken?

Did you even read the first 95% of my post?

And actually, what you claim won this election, "moral values", actually supports my argument, so thank you for that.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   
It seems that the Democrats on this board are devisive as ever, even after getting beat. You lost because you had a flawed canindate who did not cut the mustard with 59 million Americans. You had a canindate who hid his own diary from America becuase of what he wrote. What's that, he met with the North Vietnamese Terrorist in Paris, Funny how it comes out now after the election. You lost becuase you and your ilk are out of touch with the majority of America.

In 2000 you claimed that every chad had to be counted, and demanded that America go to electornic voting, now you are complaining about the electronic voting. All of you DU's just don't get it, America is conservative at it's heart.

Seems to me that us poor ignorant folks are in power again for the next for years. not only that we gained in the senate and the house, but you can't understand that can you. Since you are so smart, please tell me how that happened? If the machines were rigged like you said, then how come Salazar won in Colorado and Vitters win in LA?

like they say in football, statistics are for losers.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Just ran across this:
Electronic voting machines, Florida, and Bush votes in 2004


On November 18, several researchers from UC Berkley released a working paper [local]. The paper alleges to present statistical evidence that, in the 2004 Presidential elections, the use of electronic voting machines in Florida gave to Bush votes that he would not have otherwise received. The finding was covered in a Wired News article.

In response to this, I wrote a paper [html, pdf] that shows that the model used by the Berkley team is flawed. Specifically, the model fails to account for demographic shifts between 2000 and 2004. In the four years, on average (across counties), the number of registered Republicans increased by 29% whereas the number of registered Democrats increased only by 5%. In three counties (Baker, Gilchrist, and Liberty), the number of registered Republicans increased by more than 90%. Once I correct for this shift, the "electronic voting machine effect" disappears. My conclusion is that there is no statistical evidence of a relationship between the use of electronic voting machines and the change in the percentage of votes cast for Bush.


Thought it might create further response and counter information pertaining to the allegations that have prevailed concerning e-votes.

edit: also to be found here: Berkeley bunkum



seekerof

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Of course, 'controversery' will always be reverberated on the issues of the 2004 elections, but ran across this current article published by the Miami Herald:


LAKE BUTLER - Since George W. Bush captured Florida and the White House again, critics have fixed their sights on northern pockets of the Sunshine State and asked: How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?

Some wondered whether Florida's tally was corrupt, with one Internet site writing: ``George W. Bush's vote tallies, especially in the key state of Florida, are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable.''

No flaw is found in Bush's state win

Addresses a number of those contested counties.




seekerof



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   
.
Without a verifiable paper trail how can ANYONE have confidence in electronic [or any kind of] voting?
.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I just want them to figure it all out, and make absolutely SURE that whoever won, WON. I don't care who actually did (well I do, but that is inconsequential to the point at hand). I care much more that the voting system be proven to be fair, and that any mistakes, whether fraud or not, get corrected. If we cannot trust in our voting system, the implications and consequences of that mistrust will be vastly more far reaching and devasting than the current election itself.

At the moment, I must admit that with all the incessant reports of irregularities and exit polls with outrageous, improbable statistical data, I feel something is definately up. But if seekerof's report is correct, they need to account for this supposed shift in demographics, and correct the flaws. You'd figure they'd base their findings on the most recent demographics available. Then again, if they didn't, then it is entirely possible that such massive disparities could exist, and I sure see where you are coming from, seeker. Good point.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   
.
Trying to 'deduce' the actual results based on projections and statistical analysis is like trying to read tea leaves, it is all a bit mad.

Please people, demand a verifiable paper trail.
If you buy anything you get a receipt.
If you vote for the leader of the free world it seems to me that is the least you should get.
.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   
The questions that need to be answered are,


From linked article
have all the votes been accurately counted? Did Bush really receive more votes than Kerry? With private companies and centralized computer systems processing the overwhelming majority of the ballots in the United States, the public has lost its oversight of the vote-counting process.

Electronic voting machines and the private companies that operate the voting systems and count the votes have “eliminated any public oversight,” investigative journalist and critic of voting machines Lynn Landes told AFP. We now have “faith-based voting,” she said.

“Why have the Democrats not safeguarded the integrity of the election?” Landes asked. “It smacks of complicity.”

source


Now if it is found that the election was in fact rigged, where does that leave Mr Kerry?

Could he claim the presidency even though he has conceded defeat, and what would the chances be of Mr Bush leaving the White House quiet, orderly fashion?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:29 AM
link   
If they do discover that Kerry won before Dec 3 certifications are in, Bush will probably either walk out in a rage, or he might, just might try to attempt something like....Hmmm, I better not go there...Nasty thought.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
At the moment, I must admit that with all the incessant reports of irregularities and exit polls with outrageous, improbable statistical data, I feel something is definately up. But if seekerof's report is correct, they need to account for this supposed shift in demographics, and correct the flaws. You'd figure they'd base their findings on the most recent demographics available. Then again, if they didn't, then it is entirely possible that such massive disparities could exist, and I sure see where you are coming from, seeker. Good point.

Consider the source of all of these reports, then you will see that something is definitely up - sour grapes. No reputable news sources, including the mostly liberal, left-wing TV media, are calling foul.

Ask yourself why it was that Kerry conceded so early. Was it:
a) He saw the numbers and realized he could not win, and so he graciously conceded
b) He knew that he had won, but he was actually COMPLICIT in some wild scheme to allow Bush to stay in power. This is where Skull & Bones, NWO, etc. can be freely injected as components. All unprovable, of course.

Ask yourself, if the e-voting machines were rigged to give Bush the win, then it follows that a state that used e-voting machines exclusively should have gone to Bush, right? Then look at the results in the state of Maryland.

And finally, try to reconcile the other races, such as Senate, etc., where Republicans picked up ground. Why weren't they participants in this grand conspiracy?

I know this is a conspiracy site. But I really find it funny when I see such phrases that try to prove conspiracy like "I feel" or "I just know" or "Something just doesn't seem right". The slogan here is Deny Ignorance, but that doesn't include "Abandon common sense and reason all ye who enter here".

When things get so hopelessy complicated that you get a headache trying to figure it out, just remember Occam's Razor. You'll usually come out ahead.





posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I think in response to your post, I will quote your own signature:

"The facts, though interesting, are irrelevant."

The facts, wherever they come from, are extremely relevant in this case, because the future of this country depends on these facts. Somehow I doubt, that out of nowhere, the libs are resorting to accusations of a rigged election, if there was not indeed just cause to bring them up. Again I say, they better get it all sorted out, and just get it right. That is my only real concern. It's not about who won.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
If you don't think that the libs are whining because of nothing, then you are wrong. Did you expect them to take this defeat at all levels of office laying down? Don't you remember Kerry saying that he planned to challenge the election, a week before it was even held?

Remember, whatever you accuse the Republicans of doing, the Democrats are just as capable of doing. To believe otherwise would be naive.




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Well actually, I believe that either are capable. Had the election gone the other way, and there was evidence of tampering, The Bush cabal would have questioned it and pursued it, no doubt. Especially some of this far out stuff like Bush getting 18,000 votes in areas where ony 12,000 were registered to vote. And contrary to your statement about Kerry saying he was going to challenge the election a week before, Kerry conceded early on, and it has taken him nearly a month to even go along with the request for recounts in some areas. I believe he had second thoughts after the Green and Libertarian parties got the money to force a recount in Ohio. You seem hellbent on insisting that the libs are doing this out of spite and sour grapes alone, and I couldn't disagree more.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
At this point, investigating the election is not about trying to determine who should or shouldn't be president. This issue should not be marginalized as a cause for "losers with an axe to grind." A faulty election system will eventually effect all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

One would think that after the election debacle in 2000, the system would have been corrected, but whether you supported Bush, Kerry, Nader, or Zippy the Pinhead for president this year, you can't deny that there are still serious problems with the way elections are held and with the equipment that is in use. There were numerous reports of flaws in electronic voting systems across the country--as well as system design issues that make tampering undetectable. These new voting systems are supposed to be a vast improvement over the manual systems that were in place, but they appear to be just as problematic and subject to failure. In New York, we still have old manual voting booths from the 1950's & 60's that are notorious for breaking down and losing the day's votes, but is that any worse that a new computerized system that stops counting votes mysteriously during the day (as reported in Carteret County, NC) or phantom votes being added to total tallies (as reported in Sarpy County, NE)? A complete list of electronic voting problems can be found at
www.votersunite.org...

The question that must be asked and answered is why did election officials adopt electronic systems that are just as poorly designed (or even more troublesome) than the antiquated or ambiguous systems that were in place during the 2000 election. Was this by design or just sheer bureaucratic stupidity? Equally as important, what is going to be done to fix the problems?

The only way to find the answer to these questions is to investigate the evidence--the election data. We must find out if the anomalies were caused by glitches or tampering, and the solutions must address these problems directly. Hard-copy paper trails are a start, but that still doesn't solve "bugs" (either intentional or legitimate) that are built in to the software. And the election process needs to be overhauled also--having partisan officials in charge of elections is letting the foxes run the hen house.

In 2000, we let the outrage over butterfly ballots and hanging chads die down and we were hoodwinked into believing that these problems would be solved by new, electronic voting systems. We have four years until 2008--let's uncover the problems now so we don't get fooled again.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join