http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2598159#2598161
(Note that it’s Gahanna, not Gahana. Maybe it should be Gehenna, since that’s where we seem to be living …)
My Hubby keeps asking how it is that voter turnout was only 15% higher when people were standing in lines for hours in order to vote.
a) You see, with 15% more voters, we needed 15% less voting machines! 
b) Bush takes credit for the massive turnout, but he only won by 1% of the popular vote! Now, that’s a landslide, if I ever saw one!
- Jinx
Link broken. I tried to find the numers but gave up.
Page 23 of that report does seem to contain an error. So are people combing through reports everywhere in order to check for that type of thing? I’d just like to know. I’m not demanding a recount or asserting that somebody cheated - but tiny bits of shenanigans would add up. How many errors are commonly found in election returns?
Link worked for me - it stopped a few times, but did eventually load. The whole report is 400+ pages.
A lot, a lot, a lot. That’s one thing I learned from the 2000 election – exacting precision was never much of a priority for most all election apparatuses nationwide. “Close enough” was the rule of the day … and probably still is most everywhere.
Admittedly, this built-in imprecision rarely matters … but when it does – look out.
Well, if DU says it’s so. :rolleyes:
I’m sure there will be plenty of cites/sites along to show abnormalities on the other side as well.
And hey, who cares if the democratic process is fundementally flawed due to us being unable to freakin’ count all the votes. It’s not like every citizen gets a vote and that vote is supposed to matter, right? Don’t worry, your guy won, who cares about the fundemental integrity of American elections?
(I ask you, why is it that when dealing with money we must be accurate down to the last penny, but when dealing with votes a ‘margin of error’ is acceptable?)
I don’t think Bush or his supporters took credit for the turnout increase. It’s pretty obvious both sides motivated their bases sufficiently to increase total turnout.
That is broken now. Screw it. Here, I uploaded the PDF to my server:
http://www.hotknifedesign.com/ohio/
Just open and search for “GAHANNA”.
Dealings with money are much more fraught with accuracy than you might be imagining, escpecially on the macro-scale of large companies and large public institutions. The “close enough” standard of precision rules the financial world as well.
I think the degree of precision you are thinking about is considered a practical impossibility – in both finance and democracy.
Hmm… over 140 million votes cast and you honestly think there is any possible way to get it exact to each vote? Numbers that big are going to have some flaws. It’s built into the system and affects both sides.
According to this site http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/uk/popula.html
That’s double the population of the UK. The population of every man, woman, and child. Not just eligable voters, much less actual voters that made it to the polls.
I wonder what the chances are that there have been recent voting disparities in the UK lately?
Not that I disbelieve you, but, well… I don’t believe that.
I may very well be ignorant, in which case I implore you to clear up my ignorance, but I was under the impression that short of Enron style accounting, the ledgers have to add up.
Why is it a practical impossibility?
It strikes me that it is fairly easy to tally up bits of information and make sure that they match…
it also strikes me that we should strive for perfection-in-voting even if it’s impossible. We should never be satisfied with less than the best.
Argh! That’s almost 120 million. I think it’s time to take a break. :smack:
Yes, I honestly think it is possible.
Let’s say we gave every voter a ten pound marble slab.
At the end of the day, you count up the marble slabs.
(I hope you don’t take this seriously)
I don’t doubt that innacuracy effects both ‘sides’. I don’t doubt that it happens all over the place.
I’m just saying that we should not be content with it, at all.
Toadspittle, I’ve looked at Pg 23 of that report, and there is a clear typo.
In precinct Gahanna 1, polling place B, it’s written that 4258 votes were cast for Bush and that 260 votes were cast for Kerry. The 4258 figure is way out of line with the other precincts in Gahanna 1, where votes for both Bush and Kerry were consistently in the triple digits.
Also, keep in mind that Franklin County overall went to Kerry by over 41,000 votes. To have a single polling place in a single precinct record a 3,998-vote win for Bush is a pretty obvious error.
And sure enough – take the “4” off of “4258”, and you get what is probably the true figure – 258 votes for Bush from Gahanna 1-B. The clincher for me is that subtracting these 4,000 votes from the Bush column makes the total precincts numbers tie out: 4346 total voters in Gahanna 1, 4279 total votes for President in Gahanna 1.
Hey, everybody check this out:
We should all do this! I mean, as long as we’re posting crap from the nutjobs over on DU.
Oh, almost forgot: :rolleyes:
Thanks for the link Debaser! You’ve doubled my entertainment.
Well, probably quadrupled it as the SDMB seems much more civil and rational (for the most part) based on the 4 posts there that I’ve read. 