Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Admittedly I did not read the entire thing, it was a little winded.

As for exit polls though, they suck as a measure as who will win in a
national in a country as large as the US. They seem to work alright in
Germany, England, and maybe Haiti or whereever, face it Germany is
what, the size of California?

Look at who performs exit polls in this country? And consider where
most of the polling is done? I am sure there are all kinds of
convoluted formuli out there to take numbers generated in one
geographic area and figure out what they might be in another
geographic area, but it is still a "best guess".

I personally think the less restrictions we place on who can vote, the
easier it becomes to have this type of issue arise. Oregon and
Illinois have had serious problems with dead people voting. There is
evidence of people voting multiple times. This is why we have to
sometimes maintain the records, and track who is voting. If you have
not registered, and you are not voting in the proper location, then no
voting for you.

As for some of those charges, I really don't care if the national
media picks it up or not. Most of these people are crackpots. Trying
to make something out of nothing. I remember in the election people
complaining they were turned away from the polls because they were no
on the voting rolls.

What makes me sick is this attitude of, "I have a right, but no
responsibility!" If you want to make sure you are counted when you
vote, then it is your damn responsibility to do it. It is not enough
to assume the government has all your information, it is up to you to
make sure you are registered. I would not absolve anyone from wrong
doing, but a lot of this article was spent complaining about things
that were well within the power of the voter to ensure did not happen.

On 6/1/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Also, if the evidence really is as good as this article suggests, it
> > does surprize me that the mainstream media haven't picked up on this. It
> > does tend to make me doubt much of the truth of these stories, or think
> > that they have been distorted, because if the evidence really is good, I
> > just don't see the media leaving it alone.
>
> Right.  I want to know.  Well, now that there is a freely-available
> article written by a famous person, everyone can look at it and the news
> reporters should be covering it.  Either they should say that it is all
> baloney, or that some of it is true, or that all of it is true, or
> whatever.  I look forward to hearing from them.
>
> By the way, the number 1/660,000 from the social scientist named Freeman
> -- that number is not correct.  I told him he was doing it wrong and he
> just went ahead and did it wrong anyway.  That pisses me off a lot.
> Originally he had 1/250,000,000, which was also wrong.  I showed him a
> correct method that brought the number down to 1/1,200,000.  Then he came
> up with the 1/660,000 which seems to have involved correcting some of his
> other mistakes, but not the one I pointed out.  He is a fairly naive
> statistician and I don't know which of his numbers might be incorrect.
> The number I get, based on his data, is 1/6,359, which is still
> statistically significant but not quite as earth shattering as he was
> shooting for.
>
>
> > One example - at the beginning of the article it says that exit polls
> > suggested that Kerry should get a landslide victory.  But my sense at
> > that time was that the nation was very divided, and that the election
> > would be extremely close.  Thus, if exit polls at that time really did
> > predict an overwhelming Kerry victory, I do have to say that my
> > immediate reaction at that time would have been that the exit polls got
> > it wrong, because they simply would not fit with my anecdotal sense of
> > what was going on - and generally I trust anecdotal evidence a lot more
> > than statistical evidence.
>
> A "landslide" victory could mean 2:1 in the electoral college, but that
> might translate to less than half of the popular vote.  It is
> theoretically possible to win by a landslide in the electoral college
> while losing by a landslide in the popular vote -- one reason to find the
> system unappealing.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion