Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election fi

[Tgace]

One of the sources I posted above explains how the system works and goes through all of the steps in which the GOP has stood in the way.

Then why are all the prominent Democratic Party windbags not screaming their lungs out on the Capitol steps?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Then why are all the prominent Democratic Party windbags not screaming their lungs out on the Capitol steps?

They are part of the 'conspiracy' of course.

 

[sgtmac_46]

David Card and Enrico Moretti have this to add to the debate

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11309.html

"If irregularities did take place, they would be most likely in counties that could potentially affect statewide election totals, or in counties where election officials had incentives to affect the results. Contrary to this prediction, we find no evidence that touch-screen voting had a larger effect in swing states, or in states with a Republican Secretary of State."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I look at it this way:

While I doubt there was a top level conspiracy to use coordinated methods to hand the election over, I do believe that there was attempts, by both sides, to confuse the voters, distract them, and use various means to influence and at times bluntly change/edit their votes in various locations.

Any such attempts would of course to an extent cancel each other out with the more effective "cheat team" ending with a minor advantage.

We have proof that there were problems with the machines in many areas.
We have proof that there were attempts to mislead votors on where and when they could vote.
We have proof that there were some cases of vote counts being wrong.

That is ground for the belief, especially when the winner only wins by a small margin, whose popularity continues to drop, and whom seems increasingly removed from the "feelings" of the people.

Personally, if there is a vast conspiracy to manipulate our votes at will, I wish they would take a liking to the Libertarian or Green parties. I would love to see them gain office, especially when in many areas, they weren't even allowed on tha ballot.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is the entire abstract.

Supporters of touch-screen voting claim it is a highly reliable voting technology, while a growing number of critics argue that paperless electronic voting systems are vulnerable to fraud. In this paper we use county-level data on voting technologies in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections to test whether voting technology affects electoral outcomes. We first show that there is a positive correlation between use of touch-screen voting and the level of electoral support for George Bush. This is true in models that compare the 2000-2004 changes in vote shares between adopting and non-adopting counties within a state, after controlling for income, demographic composition, and other factors. Although small, the effect could have been large enough to influence the final results in some closely contested states. While on the surface this pattern would appear to be consistent with allegations of voting irregularities, a closer examination suggests this interpretation is incorrect. If irregularities did take place, they would be most likely in counties that could potentially affect statewide election totals, or in counties where election officials had incentives to affect the results. Contrary to this prediction, we find no evidence that touch-screen voting had a larger effect in swing states, or in states with a Republican Secretary of State. Touch-screen voting could also indirectly affect vote shares by influencing the relative turnout of different groups. We find that the adoption of touch-screen voting has a negative effect on estimated turnout rates, controlling for state effects and a variety of county-level controls. This effect is larger in counties with a higher fraction of Hispanic residents (who tend to favor Democrats) but not in counties with more African Americans (who are overwhelmingly Democrat voters). Models for the adoption of touch-screen voting suggest it was more likely to be used in counties with a higher fraction of Hispanic and Black residents, especially in swing states. Nevertheless, the impact of non-random adoption patterns on vote shares is small.

Note that this article is advancing an alternative explanation for the discrepencies. I am paying 5 dollars for the paper and I'll check out how they got to those conclusions when I have the chance.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Phoenix44]

A bigger issue than the 2004 election is the 2006 and 2008 election. Right now, counties all over the country are considering and holding hearings on what type of voting machines they will buy under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).

If you want your touchscreen machines to have a paper receipt, or if you'd prefer an optical scanner with paper ballot, I hope you're attending these hearings or expressing your opinion to your county Boards of Election.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Here is the entire abstract.



Note that this article is advancing an alternative explanation for the discrepencies. I am paying 5 dollars for the paper and I'll check out how they got to those conclusions when I have the chance.

upnorthkyosa

I'm willing to bet 5 dollars no matter how accurate their findings and how convincing their results, you'll still believe what you've already concluded. Religious belief is not dispelled by mere 'evidence'.

 

[Makalakumu]

Keep your five dollars. The authors have withdrawn their paper. However, I found the paper elsewhere on the net. Take a look.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/dre.pdf

And its at Berkeley, imagine that. I read the study this morning and here is my analysis.

F sub m times X is the mechanical effect voting machines have on the fraction of minority voters. In other words, this is the scare factor that the paper postulates. When they run their regression, this is the factor that will suppress the correllation between the lines of significance.

The X factor was arbitrarily determined. It has no research backing it up and they made no effort to control for things like long lines, voter intimidation, deliberate voter misdirection, or anything else that may have affected minority turnout. Basically, they arbitrarily picked and choosed among county wide data sets to find data sets with no explanation as to why they picked particular county data set. Then they compared certain data sets until they got a value for X. This value was then arbitrarily applied everywhere again with no effort made to control for anything and with no explanation as to why this was even valid.

In conclusion, the model of this study is flawed. It has no basis in reality and does little to control for the independent variables that may have affected the data in the county's they arbitrarily choose for their value of X. Further, the artificially determined value of X is arbitrarily applied everywhere irregularities occured and their is no research or explanation as to why this was done. There is no research backing up this so called "scare factor" and their absolutely no evidence that shows that this X factor even exists.

The only thing this study got right is to show that their is a positive correllation between the use of voting machines and votes for George W. Bush. Their alternative explanation is far from proven.

I can see why the paper was withdrawn. It's rediculous.

upnorthkyosa