that's the problem, though, we'll never know. For the record, I am
just saying it smells terrible, and like Caesar's wife, the election
process should be above reproach. Why not just move to SQL server, or
is the accountability the problem? By the way, last I saw, we were
still counting votes here.
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/glitches13e_20041113.htm
Trouble plagues N. Carolina vote count
November 13, 2004
BY STEVE HARTSOE
ASSOCIATED PRESS
RALEIGH, N.C. -- A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North
Carolina in the 10 days since Election Day, with thousands of votes
missing and the out
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:12 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Election Audit Petition
> Robert wrote:
> The bottom line is that the polling company said its own results were
skewed.
> There is no conspiracy. There is no broader issue at play.
The broader issue is:
1.) T
> Robert wrote:
> The bottom line is that the polling company said its own results were skewed.
> There is no conspiracy. There is no broader issue at play.
The broader issue is:
1.) There were multiple polling companies that conducted exit polls
including teams from both campaigns.
2.) We don't
I am not making an assumption, I am basing my argument on a report prepared by
the polling company itself after the election. From the New York Times:
---
THE 2004 ELECTION: THE POLLING; Report Says Problems Led To Skewed Surveying
Data
By JIM RUTENBERG (NYT) 1185 words
Late Edition - Fi
d up.
+) Most likely in my opinion we'll find (if indeed we bother to try) that a
combination of all of the above will be at fault.
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:43 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Ele
S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Particularly when this task is responsible for putting in place the
> people responsible for putting federal mandates in place which
> override state laws.
To me this issue is simple: if there are legitmate questions about the
outcome of an election, th
> Personally I would like to see a sincere effort for the
> states to agree on a
> single, consistent, peer-reviewed election process. While
> I completely
> respect and support the state right to manage their own
> elections I find it
> ridiculous that we have literally hundreds of different
> sy
I would think any action taken to monitor the quality of the election
process should naturally come out of the funding for general election
procedures.
It shouldn't be up to private citizens to fund quality checks for this
process - the funding should be available and budgeted at the outset. In
g
> > Michael wrote:
> > Should there be checks on all states where the exit polls differed greatly
> > from the actual numbers? I don't see why not.
>
> Now THAT'S reasonable. It's in all American's interest to be
> confident in our election process and sure about the result. This
> isn't a part
Not just sociology. A couple of things to consider that may be
relevant. First off people's reports of their behavior and their
actual behavior only matched some of the time. Also, how people
respond to questionnaires is fairly sensitive to their perceptions of
what the person thinks he's being ask
> Michael wrote:
> Should there be checks on all states where the exit polls differed greatly
> from the actual numbers? I don't see why not.
Now THAT'S reasonable. It's in all American's interest to be
confident in our election process and sure about the result. This
isn't a partisan issue, it
There are sociological studies that show that people will lie when put on
the spot about a choice that is seen as socially rejected. Where I work, the
anti-Bush sentiment is so strong that anyone short of me would lie about who
they voted for due to social/peer pressure. I'm not saying that the the
> Robert wrote:
> It's a bunch of hooey. The entire exercise rests on the flawed assumption
> that the polls were conducted correctly
Isn't it a "flawed assumption" to assume they weren't? In fact, all
the report is saying is that the odds of all of the exit polls in all
3 states being consistent
> Jim wrote:
> Just to poke my nose in:
>
Well written! This should be published somewhere, maybe a blog?
~|
Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net
http://www.cfhosting.net
Message: http://www.ho
Just to poke my nose in:
1) Yes Bush won the election. I don't think that the study referenced is
attempting to prove differently (although Gruss may indeed be - but I'll let
him speak for himself). That's not really the issue at hand.
2) The study has made no assumptions that I could see on ho
It's a bunch of hooey. The entire exercise rests on the flawed assumption that
the polls were conducted correctly and that only chance occurrence created the
skewed polling. A scientific theory built on a flawed assumption is in and of
itself flawed.
You need to get over it. The smartest, toug
> Robert wrote:
> There is no legitimate data suggesting anything other than a lot of wishful
> thinking
There is a scientific study from the University of Pennsylvania that says:
1.) Exit polls are so scientifically accurate that they're used to
audit elections around the world, and,
2.) The ma
I am not being irresponsible. There is no legitimate data suggesting anything
other than a lot of wishful thinking on the part of people who made a huge
emotional investment in Kerry winning. Anyone who is hell-bent on proving that
Kerry won, regardless of what the facts say, should re-think the
I like Kerry. But I have the same sort of on the onehand/one the other
hand approach to things. The fact is that this drives some people
crazy and it is not, in any event, the stuff that sound bytes -- or
charisma -- is made of.
Dana
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:54:44 -0600, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
pro-kerry.
> But Bush didn't lose and I don't believe there was enough fruad to change
> that.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tangorre, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:04 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: R
The whole issue is that had there been fraud, we might well not know.
I am sure there was in New Mexico; what I don't know is whether it
involved the machines and/or affected the outcome. I did see that New
Mexico has a total finally, but I haven't had a chance to read the
news stories yet.
But th
G wrote:
> I think if you look at the election record of the United States
> throughout history, you'd find our record on elections is pretty damn
> good. We always "get it right", even if, like in 2000, it takes some due
> process to achieve that.
I don't buy it. There is sufficient proof to say
G wrote:
> If widespread electoral fraud occurred affecting the outcome of the 2004
> election, it should be investigated by the proper authorities.
So if it is just a little bit fraud, say affecting only the outcome of some
state ballot, it is OK?
Jochem
~~~
Robert wrote:
> I am all for re-counting every single vote in every precinct in America- as
> long as
> I don't have to pay for it. If you sign the petition, please back it up with
> your checkbook.
Had Mr. Kerry won would you be so glib and irresponsible?
>From what I've read there's legitimat
I am all for re-counting every single vote in every precinct in America- as
long as I don't have to pay for it. If you sign the petition, please back it up
with your checkbook.
>Petition to Audit Election
>
>http://www.petitiononline.com/uselect/petition.html
>
>Help us reach 50k signatures by
> Brian wrote:
> I'm still looking for a democrat who WAS pro-kerry.
I'm an independent, but I'm pro-Kerry. In an incumbent election,
however, you are always choosing between the devil do know and the
devil you don't.
To address another point, I'm not at all confident about the election.
With a
27;t carry the folks in the middle who voted for clinton, Bush got them
again as he did in 2000.
-Original Message-
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:55 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Election Audit Petition
I'm still looking for a democrat who WAS
om: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 3:05 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Election Audit Petition
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:50:50 -0800, Ken Ketsdever
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was something amiss. The Dems blew it. Bad candidate. Bad campaig
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:50:50 -0800, Ken Ketsdever
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was something amiss. The Dems blew it. Bad candidate. Bad campaign.
Bah. That's only true if by "blew it" you just mean "didn't win".
Based on the 3% margin of difference, Kerry was a good candidate. The
country
I agree. Any decent campaign would have won decidedly against Bush.
--- On Friday, November 12, 2004 2:50 PM, Ken Ketsdever scribed: ---
>
> There was something amiss. The Dems blew it. Bad candidate. Bad
> campaign.
>
~|
Spe
I'm still looking for a democrat who WAS pro-kerry.
You think in the end, this is what did him in?
>
> I'd have loved to have see Bush lose. I was more anti Bush than pro-kerry.
But Bush didn't lose and I don't believe there was enough fruad to change
that.
>
>
~
There was something amiss. The Dems blew it. Bad candidate. Bad campaign.
-Original Message-
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:58 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Election Audit Petition
I think if you look at the election record of the United States
sh than pro-kerry. But
Bush didn't lose and I don't believe there was enough fruad to change that.
-Original Message-
From: Tangorre, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:04 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Election Audit Petition
> From: K
Well, I feel much better now!
-Original Message-
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 November 2004 19:14
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Election Audit Petition
You are wrong.if that helps at all :)
>
> I'm not sure what happened this time, but it's beginn
You are wrong.if that helps at all :)
>
> I'm not sure what happened this time, but it's beginning to look like they
> stole it again, just bigger this time.
>
> I may be wrong, but there is no way of proving it for either side unless
> something is done to sort the mess out.
>
>
~~~
stole it again, just bigger this time.
I may be wrong, but there is no way of proving it for either side unless
something is done to sort the mess out.
-Original Message-
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 November 2004 18:58
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Election Audit Petition
.9835
SunShine Pages by EATEL
www.sunshinepages.com
-Original Message-
From: Wayne Putterill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:48 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Election Audit Petition
Two things amaze me about the elections in America.
1. Why is it so difficu
> From: Ken Ketsdever [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You say this
> I dislike Bush no doubt about. I also know that he won the
> election fair and square.
And then this...
> If we don't validate our election process and the technology
> associated with it the results will always be questio
Thanks for participating in my class project and providing me with the 50,000
e-mail addresses. I can almost assure you that we won't sell this list. Unless
I need some beer money. The grading for this project is as follows.
50,000 + = A
40,000 + = B
30,000 + = c
25,000 + = d
less than 25,000
I think if you look at the election record of the United States throughout
history, you'd find our record on elections is pretty damn good. We always
"get it right", even if, like in 2000, it takes some due process to achieve
that.
I wouldn't lend much credence to any cries of fraud you hear about
I dislike Bush no doubt about. I also know that he won the election fair and
square. However, I do question some of the procedures, technology and vote
tallies. Do I want the election over turned no, Bush won. Do I think there
would be enough votes to alter the election if there turned out t
Two things amaze me about the elections in America.
1. Why is it so difficult to get it right, you never seem to hear about
problems in any other developed countries? In the UK we vote, they are
counted, the next day we know who won and I can't remember there ever being
a major problem with the pr
If widespread electoral fraud occurred affecting the outcome of the 2004
election, it should be investigated by the proper authorities.
It is your argument that evidence exists that suggests this is the case?
I've seen quite the opposite.
Keeping in mind that honest accidents, slip ups, snafus, m
31122 Signatures Total
i helped.
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:06:43 +, C. Hatton Humphrey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Help us reach 50k signatures by tonight! We're already at 30,000.
>
> I have to wonder how many of those are signatures made by legitimate
> voters. Like G said, it's a really
I don't subscribe to that train of thought. Whether or not online petitions
are worthless are a separate issue.
Today's Washington Post had an interesting column on the subject today in
the Metro section. (Especially given that yesterday's post had an article
calling all the people who were voic
> Help us reach 50k signatures by tonight! We're already at 30,000.
I have to wonder how many of those are signatures made by legitimate
voters. Like G said, it's a really good thing that internet polls are
completely useless.
> Remember, it's not about Bush or Kerry. It's about Democracy.
If
*sigh*
This sounds like a great way to unite the country and try to move forward
together as best we can.
Thank goodness online petitions are completely worthless.
> Petition to Audit Election
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com/uselect/petition.html
>
> Help us reach 50k signatures by tonig
48 matches
Mail list logo
