no Sam, it doesn't say that at all. > If you scroll down and read the rest you'll see the discrepancies > were > within the bounds and shouldn't have been published before they were > weighted > > More interesting reading: > http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Talk:2004_U> nited_States_presidential_election_controversy%2C_exit_polls#Disputed > > On 6/14/06, Dana Tierney wrote: > > you passed over a statement like this to focus on a 6% discrepancy? > Who says the women voted Democratic? From the wikipedia article: > > > > "Voting locations that used electronic or other types of voting > machines that did not issue a paper receipt or offer auditability > correlate geographically with areas that had discrepancies in Bush's > favor between exit poll numbers and actual results. Exit polling data > in these areas show significantly higher support for Kerry than actual > results (potentially outside the margin of error). From a statistical > perspective, this may be indicative of vote rigging, because the > likelihood of this happening by chance is extremely low. A study of 16 > states by a former MIT mathematics professor places the likelihood at > 1 in 50,000. [9]" >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209626 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
