I can’t really respond to that. What I was telling you was the reality of the situation. The facts - what I’ve learned from my local board of elections. Now we can monday-morning quarterback it all we want, but that doesn’t change the reality of the current situation.
Some rebuttal. Other than the freely added ad hominem with respect to my knowledge, I noticed you’ve completely avoided tackling a single issue raised by Dr. Ron Baiman’s excellent and thorough exposition.
Then again, I expect no more from the likes of you and most of your blind cohorts. However, I must admit that you take your cyberbeatings quite well.
Years of practice I suspect.
If this is your idea of administering a “cyberbeating”(whatever the fuck that is), then you must think the Arizona Cardinals are a championship football team.
And the whole presentation was based upon the tired old “one in a zillion odds” exit poll nonsense that has been repeatedly debunked since 2004. Again, proof does not consist of someone agreeing with your paranoia or pointing out statistical anomalies. You need a link? The key word in most of those definitions is “evidence”. And you still don’t have any.
Exit poll nonsense? Do you know any thimg of statistics. Exit polling is very reliable and is used around the world with excellent results. Because of the supposed beat down given to the polling companies after 2000,they tripled the polling. The results are statistically sure. You reject because you want to. it is not about truth. Polling has been used for years because it works.
Polling only works when the people are randomly selected, and the results accurately recorded. Can you guarantee that there was no polling bias, intentional or not? Can you guarantee that the polling numbers weren’t tampered with at the source?
We’re all so quick to suggest that there’s some vast unknown Republican conspiracy affecting the votes in a dozen states, that used two dozen different types of machines and tallying methods. Why? Because the vote tallies disagreed with the poll that was conducted by ONE group using ONE methodology.
A group made up of a consortium of news agencies. Hmm… I don’t suppose that these news agencies have an interest in the election being controversial, do they? Wouldn’t that boost their ad revenues as everyone tuned in for the next report? Yes, the consortium of news agencies that would directly benefit from a messy election conducted a poll that implies there was election fraud. Shocking.
This is the best that you can do? A bloglike article posted on November 5, 2004 (3 days after the election) by an associate professor of English? Which says nothing more than “the actual election results didn’t match the exit polls, so therefore the Rupublicans committed fraud”? (That’s a paraphrase of the main thrust of the article, not a direct quote.)
Please. Diogenes said essentially the same thing on election night. He didn’t have any evidence either.
Well, to be fair, it also said that the exit poll results were themselves manipulated, though it didn’t support that assertion very well, either.
Exactly the system I used to vote in California yesterday.
The paper sheet verifying my vote was on display, behind a plastic window, for me to be able to read it clearly and verify it, but neither I nor the poll workers had physical access to the paper record of my vote. Once verified, it scrolled forward into the machine kept, I’m confident, safely.
Just watched “Hacking Democracy”. I’m sitting here fuming mad; they showed clear evidence of the lies, deceit and underhanded manipulations underlying our electoral process. If there’s one whiff of these shenanigans in next week’s election, I’m going to exercise my rights to do whatever it takes to reclaim our democracy. :mad: Who’s with me?
Except, as shown in “Hacking Democracy”, you’re trusting that those paper records are kept for later verification and that they actually match the real votes cast. The documentry showed that in fact, those things did not occur in Volusa County, Florida. The elections officials threw away the original paper tape rolls for the 2004 election(signed by each polling precinct worker), these were recovered by the subjects of the documentary from the trash behind the elections office. These paper records are supposed to be kept for up to 22 months, per federal law. When the original paper rolls were compared with freshly-printed rolls that were obtained through a public documents request, there were many descrepancies in the tallies of votes between the two, with Bush being given hundreds of votes on the new rolls that were not on the original, official print-outs that were in the trash.
Why this is all being found out by a small group of free-lance concerned citizens and not investigated by someone with more authority is what’s really bugging me.
As did I. If I had any doubts left, they are now defunct. Not that’ll make a bit of diffence to the True Believers.
Major point in the documentary – the inquiries made by Bev Harris and her highly qualified team of computer experts – highlights just how easy it is to hijack an US election under current conditions. Witness the two minute demo with Dean.
In any event, for those of you who you whose sole mission in life seems to be excusing and adoring Dear Leader, I’ve no doubt that you wouldn’t bother to sit through 90 minutes of naked truth.
PS-Highly ironic that the only requisite they managed to skip was none other than (paraphrasing here, no transcript) the security of their systems to be tampered with – which obviously should have been the number one issue. Yet they still got the contracts.
Amazing. :rolleyes:
And now y’all begin to understand what I’ve been saying.
Election integrity isn’t a partisan issue to my way of thinking. But you have to be careful in defining your terms here - a “paper trail” or “receipt” could be problematic in that this might be a method of buying votes. If such a paper trail still ensured a secret ballot, it’s difficult to see how anyone could object. But then, that’s what a paper ballot is anyway, it sounds again like “we’re trying to reinvent the wheel.” I’m not a crook, so I am at a disadvantage in seeing how this might be effected, either in the past or the future.
Exit pollers are in a business. They have been doing it for many years. Unless you have woken from a coma lately ,you will remember that TV stations called the elections with the information given them by the companies. The methods are proven and work
Now in 2000 they dont work. This of course proves polling does not work. Did for 50 years but no more. So when they tripled the people in the polls it was just more proof of methodology problems. I think not. Something is wrong and I dont think it ois the polling.
The Bradblog has coverered this since about 2001. They were told by Diebolt insider and have persued it since. The story and proof just continue to grow.
How is a paper trail any less secret or secure than paper ballot?