Secession

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Guy

RL,

Wait until you see the Red-vs-Blue in CA. I'm trying to find it now.

Yeah, he really did badly. There was very little time and money spent here, and it shows. He only won 60% in Orange County and did pretty poorly in San Diego. Meanwhile, Kerry gets 83% in San Francisco.

CA never was part of the plan.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

I made them.

AL:

You slay me.

If I am ever tried, I will take my defense team from here.

If you are going to Hell, might as well enjoy the ride.

TR

[pulque]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

On America Left the other day, the libs were whining that since the voting results did not match the exit polls, there must be fraud with the votes.

Obviously, they missed the class where logic was explained. If your estimate or hypothesis is disproven by the data, then it was wrong. We do not change the voting data to match the exit polls, no matter how much they wish it were so.

What a bunch of wacko crybabies!

TR

back to the non-topic of the thread. From what I have seen, most examples of documented large scale e-voting failure (in the range of 1000-4000 votes) favored President Bush. eg, Columbus Ohio, Craven County NJ.

It is worth tracking differences between counties that use e-voting (optical-scan and touch screen) compared with paper voting. The trend doesn't appear to match.
example:
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
http://ustogether.org/election04/florida_vote_patt.htm

Overall, I don't believe we change the voting data to match the exit polls. My personal hypothesis right now is that as the number of people utilizing absentee ballots climb, the exit poll becomes less accurate.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by pulque

back to the non-topic of the thread. From what I have seen, most examples of documented large scale e-voting failure (in the range of 1000-4000 votes) favored President Bush. eg, Columbus Ohio, Craven County NJ.

It is worth tracking differences between counties that use e-voting (optical-scan and touch screen) compared with paper voting. The trend doesn't appear to match.
example:
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
http://ustogether.org/election04/florida_vote_patt.htm

Overall, I don't believe we change the voting data to match the exit polls. My personal hypothesis right now is that as the number of people utilizing absentee ballots climb, the exit poll becomes less accurate.

You might want to look for a more objective source than Kathy Dopp's ustogether.org.

Example:

Clinton Record

Worked with UN, NATO and/or allies to bring peace to Kosovo, Bosnia, Northern Ireland and East Timor, promoted Middle East peace process, reduced North Korean nuclear threat through Framework Agreement and saved Mexico from currency crisis.

Bush Record

Cowboy unilateralist diplomacy, no interest in Middle East peace process, increased North Korean threat through Axis of Evil and pigmy comments, ignored Argentinean-Brazilian currency crisis.

[pulque]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

You might want to look for a more objective source than Kathy Dopp's ustogether.org.

Example:

negative. Objectivity is always a concern, but I do not expect a scientist to be politically objective. The study may still be valid. Guess what? She even includes a link to critisisms of her study.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Exit polls are not reliable indicators anyway, IMO.

[Jo Sul]

Originally Posted by pulque

negative. Objectivity is always a concern, but I do not expect a scientist to be politically objective. The study may still be valid. Guess what? She even includes a link to critisisms of her study.

Why would you not expect a scientist to be politically objective? If they present themselves as a scientist (thus implying credibility and evidence based on demonstrated fact) in a political discussion, then objectivity has the same importance as it would in a scientific discussion.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by pulque

negative. Objectivity is always a concern, but I do not expect a scientist to be politically objective. The study may still be valid. Guess what? She even includes a link to critisisms of her study.

Are you sure she is a scientist?

She seems to be guilty of false assumptions, flawed observations, faulty analysis, an attempt to create data to validate her prejudiced hypothesis, and a failure to recognize that when the data does not agree with the hypothesis, we change our hypothesis, not the data.

Saying that Bill Clinton reduced the nuclear weapons threat from NK and GWB has caused the problem there is a bit prejudiced and myopic. That alone would cause me to question her objectivity and the validity of her theory.

TR

What is the "scientific method''?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I found the map.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I also found this, which I think is pretty hysterical. It feels pretty good to know that libs are circulating this one! LMAO

[Airbornelawyer]

This Dopp does not appear to be a scientist.

And even if she was, she is not a very good one. Her premise regarding
the correlation between voter registration and expected election results is deeply and laughably flawed.

I will only choose one example. Baker County is listed as having a +220.4% Republican to -68.4% Democrat variance from her "expected" to "actual" results. Baker County is identified as an op-scan user. Baker County was also one of 3 counties MSNBC's Keith Olbermann cited as an example of inordinate GOP voting in 2004.

But despite its actual voter registrations, Baker County has a long history of supporting Republican presidential candidates. These are the results for Baker County, Florida for the last seven presidential elections:

1980 - DEM: 2,606 REP: 2,271
1984 - DEM: 1,381 REP: 3,485
1988 - DEM: 1,353 REP: 3,414
1992 - DEM: 1,974 REP: 3,417
1996 - DEM: 2,273 REP: 3,684
2000 - DEM: 2,392 REP: 5,610
2004 - DEM: 2,180 REP: 7,738

Carter was the last Democrat to win in Baker County, and even in 1980, his victory was relatively close when you consider that he grew up about 200 miles away. Kerry's 22% of the vote in 2004 is not dissimilar to Dukakis' or Mondale's 28% and is certainly in line with the trend among southern Democrats (partly slowed by southerner Clinton) away from the Democratic Party's national candidates. Even then, Clinton lost to Dole there 34% to 56%. This trend existed before that evil Republican scanning technology was invented.

I picked Baker County for more than just the statistics above. I know that county far better than any pseudo-scientists or television prima donnas. Probably half the county's population is related to me in one way or another - close or distant cousins or by marriage. My parents are buried there, in the cemetery of Oak Grove Primitive Baptist Church. It is a conservative, God-fearing, gun-owning, pick-up truck driving, farming community (though at one time it was the moonshine capital of the South). It is exactly the kind of place Kerry's and Terry McAuliffe's and Michael Moore's Democratic Party alienates. I'm surprised Kerry even got 22%.

[pulque]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

This Dopp does not appear to be a scientist.

And even if she was, she is not a very good one. Her premise regarding
the correlation between voter registration and expected election results is deeply and laughably flawed.

I will only choose one example. Baker County is listed as having a +220.4% Republican to -68.4% Democrat variance from her "expected" to "actual" results. Baker County is identified as an op-scan user. Baker County was also one of 3 counties MSNBC's Keith Olbermann cited as an example of inordinate GOP voting in 2004.

But despite its actual voter registrations, Baker County has a long history of supporting Republican presidential candidates. These are the results for Baker County, Florida for the last seven presidential elections:

1980 - DEM: 2,606 REP: 2,271
1984 - DEM: 1,381 REP: 3,485
1988 - DEM: 1,353 REP: 3,414
1992 - DEM: 1,974 REP: 3,417
1996 - DEM: 2,273 REP: 3,684
2000 - DEM: 2,392 REP: 5,610
2004 - DEM: 2,180 REP: 7,738

Carter was the last Democrat to win in Baker County, and even in 1980, his victory was relatively close when you consider that he grew up about 200 miles away. Kerry's 22% of the vote in 2004 is not dissimilar to Dukakis' or Mondale's 28% and is certainly in line with the trend among southern Democrats (partly slowed by southerner Clinton) away from the Democratic Party's national candidates. Even then, Clinton lost to Dole there 34% to 56%. This trend existed before that evil Republican scanning technology was invented.

I picked Baker County for more than just the statistics above. I know that county far better than any pseudo-scientists or television prima donnas. Probably half the county's population is related to me in one way or another - close or distant cousins or by marriage. My parents are buried there, in the cemetery of Oak Grove Primitive Baptist Church. It is a conservative, God-fearing, gun-owning, pick-up truck driving, farming community (though at one time it was the moonshine capital of the South). It is exactly the kind of place Kerry's and Terry McAuliffe's and Michael Moore's Democratic Party alienates. I'm surprised Kerry even got 22%.

WRONG. Dopp's study is not about the correlation between voter registration and expected election results. This is about a difference between electronic voting and paper-trail voting. You do not understand the way (O-E)/E is being used in this study. EVEN IF the trend is for registered Democrats to vote Republican, the point is that this happens more often in e-vote or op-scan counties than it does in paper-trail counties.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Her "study" is downright stupid.

First of all, exit polls are not reliable, period. You need a sample to be random in order to draw reliable conclusions from it, and exit poll samples are not random. Who is willing to take the time to answer questions from an exit pollster?

Second, how are "expected votes" determined? You really think this is a reliable predictor? Please.

She knows nothing about politics and anyone who credits her drivel is a fool.

Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.

[Edit: On reflection, I think the name-calling is a bit rough. But I'm leaving it in. LOL]

[Airbornelawyer]

This "scientist" is even more ignorant or mendacious than I thought.

Actual voter results are what they are. You step in the booth and pull, press or punch DEM or REP.

Expected voter results are, according to her, the percentage of registered voters for that party times the total votes cast. The variance is then the difference between the actual results for that party and what she expected.

However, she ignores the ratio of registered Republicans and Democrats to voters as a whole. Her numbers thus inflate the margins in counties where most people belong to one of the 2 parties. Look at the percentages in the first 2 columns and add them together. In the counties with low variances, the percentages are around 75% to 85%. In the counties with high variances. the percentages are in the mid-90%.

For example, in the county with the highest variances, Liberty, 96.2% of registered voters belonged to the two major parties. In the county with the second-highest variances, Lafayette, 96.0% of registered voters belonged to the two major parties. Third-highest, Calhoun, 94.3%. Baker? 93.8%.

By contrast, Broward (77.3% for the 2 major parties), Sarasota (79.1%), Hillsborough (76.8%) and Martin (80.0%), had among the lowest variances.

Going county-by-county, there is almost a direct correlation. And that's the case regardless of the technology. For example, the scanning-technology using counties with the lowest variances include Brevard (81.3% R and D), Flagler (78.9%), Hernando (80.1%), Manatee (77.3%) and Volusia (76.7%).

Add in the other discrepancy, which is that the higher variances are also in smaller population rural counties like Baker where conservative registered Democrats routinely vote for GOP candidates (many of these counties also supported Republicans Bob Martinez and Jeb Bush in their gubernatorial bids).

What a load of crap!

[pulque]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Her "study" is downright stupid.

First of all, exit polls are not reliable, period. You need a sample to be random in order to draw reliable conclusions from it, and exit poll samples are not random. Who is willing to take the time to answer questions from an exit pollster?

Second, how are "expected votes" determined? You really think this is a reliable predictor? Please.

She knows nothing about politics and anyone who credits her drivel is a fool.

Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.

First of all, her study has no data from exit polls. Its from the election results. Why are you fixated on exit polls?

Second of all, expected votes are determined in the following way. Percent Registered * Total Votes.

I do not think that "expected votes" is a reliable predictor. IT ISNT SUPPOSED TO BE A PREDICTOR. What I do think is that there is a trend for "expected votes" to be LESS of a predictor in counties that use e-votes and op-scan. Why can you not understand a simple trend? Are you so certain of new voting technologies that it is not even worth your time to examine the results?