Recount in Ohio A Sure Thing

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: conjur
Good to see a recount will be done.

Wonder how that will be performed in the Diebold precincts.

I think Florida needs one too. I find the statical anomaly bothersome. Not that it may not be accurate but that what ought to be statistically one way turns out the opposite.. The sample size was adequate for the population and the sampling was scientifically performed... least ways to my understanding... the result should not have been what occured. I think they used a 95% confidence level. And the machine thingi makes for a problematic recount so I don't know how that will turn out but there is another problem that needs sorting out... Like the place in Ohio..
And the diversionary trick there to NOT use the Diebold counties but, rather, the optical scanner counties that have been reliable in the past. Very sneaky trick. ;)

The one way to tell if the electronic paper trailless voting system has reflected the true vote of the people is to look to the exit polls. If I have my facts correct, the electronic voting areas where Bush was leading in both the exit polls and the actual tally contrasted with areas that had Bush leading in the tally but losing big time in the exit polls reflects an anomaly that is beyond explainable because those areas are democratic usually or the current sampling indicates they went Kerry instead of how they voted in '00. (some were not able to vote in '00 due to 'issues')

But, Conjur, how do they count or recount what ain't there to be recounted?
An election is suppose to be 'transparent' and electronic voting is about as impermeable to light as can be, I think.
There's the rub. But, this is not a dream, just a calamity.





;)
 

LordNoob

Senior member
Nov 16, 2003
998
8
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: conjur
Good to see a recount will be done.

Wonder how that will be performed in the Diebold precincts.

I think Florida needs one too. I find the statical anomaly bothersome. Not that it may not be accurate but that what ought to be statistically one way turns out the opposite.. The sample size was adequate for the population and the sampling was scientifically performed... least ways to my understanding... the result should not have been what occured. I think they used a 95% confidence level. And the machine thingi makes for a problematic recount so I don't know how that will turn out but there is another problem that needs sorting out... Like the place in Ohio..
And the diversionary trick there to NOT use the Diebold counties but, rather, the optical scanner counties that have been reliable in the past. Very sneaky trick. ;)

The one way to tell if the electronic paper trailless voting system has reflected the true vote of the people is to look to the exit polls. If I have my facts correct, the electronic voting areas where Bush was leading in both the exit polls and the actual tally contrasted with areas that had Bush leading in the tally but losing big time in the exit polls reflects an anomaly that is beyond troublesome because those areas are democratic usually or the current sampling indicates they went Kerry instead of how they voted in '00. (some were not able to vote in '00 due to 'issues')

But, Conjur, how do they count or recount what ain't there to be recounted?
An election is suppose to be 'transparent' and electronic voting is about as impermeable to light as can be, I think.

Yes, exactly. Such anomalies with electronic voting precincts are completely unacceptable to say the least. Basic statistics tells you that this shouldn't have happened, unless of course there was some sort of impropriety.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: LordNoob
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: conjur
Good to see a recount will be done.

Wonder how that will be performed in the Diebold precincts.

I think Florida needs one too. I find the statical anomaly bothersome. Not that it may not be accurate but that what ought to be statistically one way turns out the opposite.. The sample size was adequate for the population and the sampling was scientifically performed... least ways to my understanding... the result should not have been what occured. I think they used a 95% confidence level. And the machine thingi makes for a problematic recount so I don't know how that will turn out but there is another problem that needs sorting out... Like the place in Ohio..
And the diversionary trick there to NOT use the Diebold counties but, rather, the optical scanner counties that have been reliable in the past. Very sneaky trick. ;)

The one way to tell if the electronic paper trailless voting system has reflected the true vote of the people is to look to the exit polls. If I have my facts correct, the electronic voting areas where Bush was leading in both the exit polls and the actual tally contrasted with areas that had Bush leading in the tally but losing big time in the exit polls reflects an anomaly that is beyond troublesome because those areas are democratic usually or the current sampling indicates they went Kerry instead of how they voted in '00. (some were not able to vote in '00 due to 'issues')

But, Conjur, how do they count or recount what ain't there to be recounted?
An election is suppose to be 'transparent' and electronic voting is about as impermeable to light as can be, I think.

Yes, exactly. Such anomalies with electronic voting precincts are completely unacceptable to say the least. Basic statistics tells you that this shouldn't have happened, unless of course there was some sort of impropriety.

I'm not ready to indict anyone... yet. I think it possible that the programming may be at fault. Or maybe the system 'glitched' in those democratic areas. Maybe the hurricanes left excess electricity in some areas and not others.. possible... No? But, I won't accept that the polling statistics were so far out of sync with the actual vote results. It just ain't statistically possible.... not to that much of a variance.
We need fixing this before the '08 elections.
I'm reminded of all the folks who died that were linked to Kennedy's Dallas event..... all so soon thereafter. Another statistically improbable occurance.. all in some tragic manner... one after the other. But I digress...
Wonder what Arlen Specter has to say about this election dilema... 'magic voting booths'.... I guess.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: LordNoob
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: conjur
Good to see a recount will be done.

Wonder how that will be performed in the Diebold precincts.

I think Florida needs one too. I find the statical anomaly bothersome. Not that it may not be accurate but that what ought to be statistically one way turns out the opposite.. The sample size was adequate for the population and the sampling was scientifically performed... least ways to my understanding... the result should not have been what occured. I think they used a 95% confidence level. And the machine thingi makes for a problematic recount so I don't know how that will turn out but there is another problem that needs sorting out... Like the place in Ohio..
And the diversionary trick there to NOT use the Diebold counties but, rather, the optical scanner counties that have been reliable in the past. Very sneaky trick. ;)

The one way to tell if the electronic paper trailless voting system has reflected the true vote of the people is to look to the exit polls. If I have my facts correct, the electronic voting areas where Bush was leading in both the exit polls and the actual tally contrasted with areas that had Bush leading in the tally but losing big time in the exit polls reflects an anomaly that is beyond troublesome because those areas are democratic usually or the current sampling indicates they went Kerry instead of how they voted in '00. (some were not able to vote in '00 due to 'issues')

But, Conjur, how do they count or recount what ain't there to be recounted?
An election is suppose to be 'transparent' and electronic voting is about as impermeable to light as can be, I think.

Yes, exactly. Such anomalies with electronic voting precincts are completely unacceptable to say the least. Basic statistics tells you that this shouldn't have happened, unless of course there was some sort of impropriety.

Some have said that the anomoly counties in florida have gone similarly since the 80's, but i'm too lazy to look for numbers and I don't really care anymore.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Only a complete idiot could look at raw statistical data, compare them with ACTUAL RESULTS and decry that the actual results have to be wrong because they don't agree with the statistics. Anybody that stupid needs to take a refresher course, and this time try staying awake in class.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Personally, I think that Bush has the power to put this voter fraud thing to rest. He whould establish a bi-partisan commission to study electoral improprieties on a large scale, and then publish guidelines that will help prevent them in the future. I think that this would go a long way to establishing unity in the country.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Personally, I think that Bush has the power to put this voter fraud thing to rest. He whould establish a bi-partisan commission to study electoral improprieties on a large scale, and then publish guidelines that will help prevent them in the future. I think that this would go a long way to establishing unity in the country.
LMAO! You think Bush would even consider that?

18 months after a felony was committed by someone high up in the White House by leaking the name of a covert CIA agent, we're still nowhere near the end of the investigation. Bush could have made the person guilty come forward and tell the truth. But nooooo....he had to keep his mouth shut and let the government waste money and time and resources.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Format C:
Only a complete idiot could look at raw statistical data, compare them with ACTUAL RESULTS and decry that the actual results have to be wrong because they don't agree with the statistics. Anybody that stupid needs to take a refresher course, and this time try staying awake in class.

:thumbsup:

CsG
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Format C:
Only a complete idiot could look at raw statistical data, compare them with ACTUAL RESULTS and decry that the actual results have to be wrong because they don't agree with the statistics. Anybody that stupid needs to take a refresher course, and this time try staying awake in class.

:thumbsup:

CsG

Quite right - even at a 95% confidence level, you're going to be wrong 1 time in 20. Youcan even calculate the odds of a specific 'final result' given your polling results (the odds that those polling results could have come from a pool representing the final result).

However, when the same error happens in poll after poll after poll, and the errors almost always work in the same direction, you either have a systematic polling error (a plausible candidate for which no one has yet offered) or you have to conclude that your sample was very unlikely to have come from the 'final result' pool.

Only a complete idiot would look at the exit polls from election day, and the final results and say 'clearly absolutely nothing unusual happened here'. It may be that there was no impropriety (actually, that's impossible, there are documented cases of electioneering on both sides of the vote; some impropriety is a given here), but concluding that it's simply 'statistics playing it's tricks again' is pretty near-sighted.

Statistics illuminate; they never prove, but they don't lie either; the exit polls having come from the 'same' election as the one that reported results on the evening of November 2nd is a very unlikely proposition. The only question is 'why?'.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The paper was authored by Michael Hout, a professor of sociology at U.C. Berkeley...

Hout was not immediately available for comment.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
University of California at Berkeley

Stats also show that sociology professors are almost 70:1 to vote Democratic.
And?

BTW, do you use Unix/Linux?

I just get very suspicious whenever anything comes out of UCB.
Dates back 30+ years.

Sterotyping but research can be presented differently using the same raw data. Numbers do not lie, only those that manipulate the numbers for their own means.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Then try reading instead of bashing:


Berkeley's summary:

The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bushin the 2004 Florida Elections http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new...004/election04_Sum.pdf


Working Paper: The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in
Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections
Michael Hout, Laura Mangels, Jennifer Carlson, Rachel Best
With the assistance of the
UC Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new...2004/election04_WP.pdf
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Lawyers documenting voting problems say they'll challenge results
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beacon.../state/10227401.htm?1c
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Lawyers who have been documenting voting day problems in Ohio say they'll challenge the results of the presidential election as soon as the vote is official.

The lawyers say documented cases of long lines, a shortage of machines and a pattern of problems in predominantly black neighborhoods are enough evidence to bring such a challenge.

"The objective is to get to the truth," said Cliff Arnebeck, a lawyer who said he'll represent voters who cast ballots Nov. 2. Arnebeck said the effort is bipartisan.

"What's critically important, whether it's President Bush or Sen. Kerry, whoever's been actually elected, is to know you won by an honest election," he said. "So it's in the interest of both sides as American citizens to know the truth and to have this answered."

Ohio Republican Party chairman Bob Bennett said it was a joke that the effort was being billed as bipartisan.

"This is nothing but an absurd attempt by a handful of radical front groups to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. The election is over, the Democrats have conceded and the outcome will not change," Bennett said in a statement.

"This is an egregious waste of time and taxpayer money. It's time to move on."

More than 200 people in Columbus voiced their complaints Nov. 13 about voting problems on Election Day, some accusing the state of voter suppression. Many were Kerry supporters.

A similar hearing was scheduled Friday in Cleveland.

The Columbus hearing was organized by Robert Fitrakis, a lawyer and political science professor at Columbus State Community College, who is also involved in filing the challenge.

"The sworn statements that we've received should give everyone cause to go forward in terms of this inquiry," Fitrakis said.

Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell will certify the election results by Dec. 6, spokesman Carlo LoParo said Friday.

A ruling in favor of the challenge could lead to a recount or even having the results set aside, although Arnebeck hinted that such an event was unlikely.

A statewide recount of the presidential vote is already inevitable because a pair of third-party candidates said they have collected enough money to pay for it.

Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb said Monday they raised more than $150,000 in four days, mostly in small contributions. Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct for a recount, or $113,600 statewide.
Sounds like Bennett would rather the voting problems be glossed over. And how is the recount wasting taxpayer money? It's being paid for by other political parties, not tax money.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
...Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct for a recount, or $113,600 statewide.
And how is the recount wasting taxpayer money? It's being paid for by other political parties, not tax money.

Surely not even you can be THAT daft.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Format C:
Originally posted by: conjur
...Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct for a recount, or $113,600 statewide.
And how is the recount wasting taxpayer money? It's being paid for by other political parties, not tax money.

Surely not even you can be THAT daft.

The recount was requested by and is being paid for with contributions given to the Green Party.

How can you possibly confuse that with a taxpayer funded recount?

 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond

The recount was requested by and is being paid for with contributions given to the Green Party.

How can you possibly confuse that with a taxpayer funded recount?

Try reading and THINKING for a change. And NO, I won't do it for you. The information is right in front of you.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Format C:
Originally posted by: BBond

The recount was requested by and is being paid for with contributions given to the Green Party.

How can you possibly confuse that with a taxpayer funded recount?

Try reading and THINKING for a change. And NO, I won't do it for you. The information is right in front of you.

The information in front of me says the Green Party is paying for a recount of votes in Ohio to the tune of $113,600. If you have any information that contradicts that please post it. Otherwise I've seen no other information to support your ridiculous conjecture.

 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
I said read and THINK. You've got the first part covered I suppose, now try the latter. I realize that actual thinking may be hard for some so I'll give you extra time.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Probably what Format means is "read and ASSUME."

No, what he means is "read" and then use "logic".

Do any of you really think $10 is going to cover the expenses of each precint recount?:confused:

...Guess who pays...



-sorry FormatC: I just couldn't help it - it's sad to see them wallow in their ignorance, so I had to help...

CsG