The "Conspiracy" thread
polycounter lvl 18
Time to break out the tin foil hats?
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-36.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=rob+georgia+patch
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-36.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=rob+georgia+patch
Replies
[ QUOTE ]
Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, no... if you go up to CNN's site and check out the exit polls for Ohio, the female vote was split 50/50 and the male vote went 52/47 for Bush.
Can't they at least make an effort to make their conspiracies seem plausible?
This site, while run by a pro-bush editor, seemed to be as right on the mark as any. http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
There were a few others two, that averaged polls, some done by democrats, some repubs, but they all pretty much called the election as it truly wound up.
Exit polls always have, always will be very unreliable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exit polls aren't unreliable; they're typically pretty reliable, but even if they're way off (which they weren't), it doesn't really mean anything. I imagine if Kerry won, we'd have the same conspiracies... the only difference being the people who'd be screaming "CONSPIRACY!"
I think it'd be possible to rig an election, but being as I'm not an expert and really know nothing beyond my end of the process, I'm not even going to click those links. It's just a waste of time since I wouldn't be able to do anything with the so called "evidence" anyway.
Confounded Roosevelt Frankenstein Computer-God...
/jzero
i feel left out and alone.
That is not to say that we cannot strive to make it better...
Smells like a technique to control who gets to vote and wgo recieves said votes. Incidentally, isn't my shiny hat fetching.
You'd think after the malarkey over the last election they would have gotten themselves some decent hole-punches by now, or perhaps come up with some other form of voting that isn't so prone to failure
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but with the electronic machines there are no holes to punch through and also, conveniently, no way to audit the results. Why did Republicans fight so hard against a paper trail in Florida and Ohio? hmmmmm...
Here also is an interesting graphic. You can see the margin of difference between exit polls results and the final vote count is significantly higher in the states that used the e-voting machines:
I'm not convinced that they stole the election (again) but after what they pulled in 2000 and all of the efforts they made to disenfranchise voters (again) this time, nothing the "moral" party could possibly do would surprise me.
Anyhow, go to www.cnn.com/election, you can click on the individual states and get exit poll numbers, and they're nothing like the numbers in this graphic. They all line up pretty much with the voting results, even in NM, FL, OH, and PA.
Anyhow, go to www.cnn.com/election, you can click on the individual states and get exit poll numbers, and they're nothing like the numbers in this graphic. They all line up pretty much with the voting results, even in NM, FL, OH, and PA.
[/ QUOTE ]
CNN's exit polls continued to be updated after 10:45pm (1:45am Eastern). I don't know how much lag time there is in their data, but I was surprised to wake up the next morning to see a significant difference in the exit polls (since the polls closed at 1:00am EST and I went to bed at 1:45am EST). I'm not sure what was going on there.
Nader Demands Recount
Nader requests N.H. vote recount
Nashua Telegraph (ME)
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader requested a hand recount of ballots in New Hampshire after getting seven-tenths of 1 percent of the vote.
We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire, Nader wrote.
These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5 percent to 15 percent over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states.
Naders recount request came in as a fax at 4:59 p.m., one minute before the deadline.
The application is not legal, however, because it did not come with payment, according to Assistant Attorney General Bud Fitch.
[/ QUOTE ]
The plot thickens....
...
..
.
(joke)
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/06/electionday_footage_.html
Each one of those graphs, the final results matched nearly perfectly to the myriad of polls leading up to the election. Only the exit polls have the skewed numbers.
I'm no rocket scientist, but what that would tell me, is that the exit polls are very unreliable.
[ QUOTE ]
For some reason, the states with the greatest discrepancies between exit polling and actual results all had one thing in common: they used electronic voting machines
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=388
You saw that CNN changed their exit polls?
(ignore words, just look at the screen captures)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1293911
Like someone mentions, 60 more respondants cant change it that drastically.
Thats a mighty fine coincidence ya think?
For those that at least it should be looked into, please sign and forward.
http://petitiononline.com/uselect/petition.html
You saw that CNN changed their exit polls?
(ignore words, just look at the screen captures)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1293911
[/ QUOTE ]
Good, so I'm not going crazy. When I went to bed I was pretty certain the exit polls wouldn't change much since all polls had been closed for almost an hour (and for almost three hours in the 48 continental states), but by the next morning they had changed significantly.
BTW, I don't think an online petition has ever accomplished anything, but I signed it anyway just for the hell of it.
Like I said before, the variable here is the exit polls themselves. The election results mirrored the polls leading up to it almost perfectly. So what does that tell you? C'mon people, I KNOW you are a logical group, well I hope anyway. If two of three things match up, and one(the exit polls) seems askew, what would that tell you? In fact, it's more like 50 things matching up and 1 off, since there were numerous different pollsters who predicted the election.
Keep turning over those rocks. You'll probably find alot you don't like. You know, like dead democrats who somehow manage to cast a vote?
If ANYTHING, what I conclude from this, is that the media was trying to discourage those who would be favoring Bush from voting by slanting their exit polls(why would CNN, a notable liberally biased outlet do anything to help Bush?), figuring their votes wouldn't matter in a Kerry landslide
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, if ANYTHING this is what the neo-con media did - show Kerry in a lead in the polls so that lazy Kerry supporters wouldn't bother showing up to vote.
How exactly is CNN "liberal" media, anyhow? It would appear that, by your definition, any media that isn't blatantly and overly partisan (Fox) is "liberal" media.
From what I understood EXIT polls are a much more concrete proof than polls taken days and weeks before hand. You talk of logic, but first say the exit polls are unreliable, but as proof use "pre" polls? You need a better position than that.
In fact wikipedia has picked it up (So now you have a full background WITH references).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._E...nic_voting_bias
Don't forget, this wouldn't be the first time.
[ QUOTE ]
What's particularly troubling, Harris says, is that the errors were caught only because an alert poll monitor noticed Gore's vote count going down through the evening, which of course is impossible. Diebold blamed the bizarre swing on a "faulty memory chip," which Harris claims is simply not credible. The whole episode, she contends, could easily have been consciously programmed by someone with a partisan agenda. Such claims might seem far-fetched, were it not for the fact that a cadre of computer scientists showed a year ago that the software running Diebold's new machines can be hacked with relative ease.
[/ QUOTE ]
Keep turning over those rocks. You'll probably find alot you don't like. You know, like dead democrats who somehow manage to cast a vote?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, so far all that has been found are phantom republicans that have somehow been casting votes.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/
Apparently, in a precinct where less than 700 people voted, Bush somehow received 4,258 votes. I guess ghosts must vote republican.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/pres...d_is_dismissed/
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=239735&page=1
Even the DNC and their army of lawyers are dismissing this desperate blogosphere BS.
At least I voted.
"Much of the traffic is little more than Internet-fueled conspiracy theories, and none of the vote-counting problems and anomalies that have emerged are sufficiently widespread to have affected the election's ultimate result."
You must recognize that at least for me, Im trying to push this because I want my vote to count. You may be correct in that it wouldn't have effected the outcome. But again, don't you want your vote going towards whom you want? Help us figure out what caused these descrepancies Irritant.
Why are you so against an investigation? It's highly unlikely that anything uncovered would change the results of the election. And if there really is nothing to uncover then what's the harm?
- http://www.syntheticniche.com/comics/notblog_flash.html
Of course there are descrepencies. There are always descrepencies in every single election, since there have been elections. You know why? Because humans are involved, and they are not perfect. Neither are machines, for that matter.
So sure, investigate all you want, we should always try to get results as accurate as we possibly can. Will they ever be perfect? Very doubtful.
But you cannot tell me that if there was even a snifter of a chance that these anomalies would change the outcome that Kerry and his army of lawyers would not be all over it by now.
So have your fun with the blog conspiracy theories, I've got aliens I need to track down.
Out.
Never said I was against an investigation. I just take exception to those saying that Bush "stole" the election. It's just more soreloserman tactics from the left.
[/ QUOTE ]
Who here has said that Bush "stole" the election? Who are you quoting there? You're the one that made the accusation of "dead democrats casting votes," and I merely refuted that by posting a link to a FACTUAL account (that was only confirmed by your links, not dispelled by them) of a glitch that heavily favored Bush (as most of these "glitches" do).
And Bush STOLE the election in 2000, why wouldn't he do it again in 2004? Fool me once shame on ... shame on ... fool can't be fooled again