If there was a vast "Repug" conspiracy don't you think they would have, umm I don't know KEPT THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAJORITY. I love how these these people who believe in this conspiracy crap cling to it no matter what. One of the retards that commented on this oped site said "I for one, believe the 2006 elections were rigged in favor of the Dems. Why ? The answer is simple. The ones now in place have gone too far. It's time to relax a bit and let the other hand take over." That's insane Illuminati talk. Why don't you fagots put down the John Grisham novel, get out of your parents basement and actually try to help solve these problems. Maybe try to get your beloved Democrat leaders to do something about these voting machines if there so bad. Maybe stop buying stuff you don't need if you hate the evil corporations. Just do something besides making up insane s**t you 9/11 conspiracy believing jiz-buckets. And if you want to know I'm a Republican who voted mostly democrat this last election because I think the Republicans f**ked up the last 6 years, not because I think Bush and seven Jewish bankers are trying to turn the whole world into one huge neo-con corporation. Bury me, I'll just post it again.
Screw their analysis. All you need to know is:- This is the same sort of analysis done with the 2004 elections and it finds the same style of inconsistencies both within the election and from pre-2004 elections. We haven't had a full, verified analysis of these discrepancies because (Democratic) congressional requests for unadjusted numbers have been rejected.- Two elections, one with supposed massive Republican turnout and one with supposed massive Liberal turnout, but both with the same vexing mathematical scenarios required to explain why the final vote was inconsistent in favor of Republicans outside of the margin of error.Let's bang this out to an extreme to reveal the importance of fully, publicly exploring these sorts of statistical questions:The American populace has become so unpredictable that modern, evolved and tested statistics can no longer predict peoples' actions accurately. The concepts of margin of error and statistical prediction are no longer valid, exit polls are less reliable than they used to be and they are surely at fault because they use direct, post-action interviews to collect data in a consistent fashion and the actual vote is recorded by a variety of methods and machines that operate internally in ways only known secretly by corporations.
The sampling strategy cannot be trusted. They used the same methodology for sampling as they did for the presidential election, a national election. The old saying that all politics is local is especially true when you are talking about House races. Edison/Mitofsky only followed the results of 4 House races. A national sample will not be accurate predictor for local elections.A better method would be to look at the returns in the voting districts that were actually sampled and compare the local exit poll data to actual returns at the precincts.My last problem is the source of the "unadjusted" exit poll numbers. Where are the screen shots of these numbers that disappeared from the website (of course anything posted on a website is 100% correct). Did they verify with CNN that these numbers were accurate? Did some intern post something by mistake to only have it corrected later? They should have gotten CNN to go on the record.
Often times the times used to take the polls may only see a small segment of the voters. These polls assume that both parties show up at the same time. It has been shown that sometimes Republicans do not show up except at opening and near end of the vote. While Democrats may show up in the middle of the day. If you time your poll properly you can affect the outcome. One group was talking about why the poll results are so poorly following what is happening. Some of the possibilities is poll choices may be more one party than the other. No poll will be exactly the same vote percentages. Lets say I want to corrupt the process. I go to polls that are slightly more one party than the other. Another possibility is Democrats look for pollsters while Republicans may shy away. So many of the polls taken in the past few years they over sample Democrats and under sample Republicans.
No clue how you got dugg up as your post is full of liberal irrationality, which I guess is becoming commonplace on Digg now, but you are totally wrong.First, people don't tamper with votes and lose, why take the chance at getting caught if you are not going to pull out a win for your side.Second, the economy is doing GREAT under Bush, and your claim that it isnt makes you look completely ignorant.
oricystNov 18, 2006
If there was a vast "Repug" conspiracy don't you think they would have, umm I don't know KEPT THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAJORITY. I love how these these people who believe in this conspiracy crap cling to it no matter what. One of the retards that commented on this oped site said "I for one, believe the 2006 elections were rigged in favor of the Dems. Why ? The answer is simple. The ones now in place have gone too far. It's time to relax a bit and let the other hand take over." That's insane Illuminati talk. Why don't you fagots put down the John Grisham novel, get out of your parents basement and actually try to help solve these problems. Maybe try to get your beloved Democrat leaders to do something about these voting machines if there so bad. Maybe stop buying stuff you don't need if you hate the evil corporations. Just do something besides making up insane s**t you 9/11 conspiracy believing jiz-buckets. And if you want to know I'm a Republican who voted mostly democrat this last election because I think the Republicans f**ked up the last 6 years, not because I think Bush and seven Jewish bankers are trying to turn the whole world into one huge neo-con corporation. Bury me, I'll just post it again.
craniumNov 18, 2006
@bennyboy371What? He spelled "democrats" right.
vulcanmikeNov 18, 2006
Screw their analysis. All you need to know is:- This is the same sort of analysis done with the 2004 elections and it finds the same style of inconsistencies both within the election and from pre-2004 elections. We haven't had a full, verified analysis of these discrepancies because (Democratic) congressional requests for unadjusted numbers have been rejected.- Two elections, one with supposed massive Republican turnout and one with supposed massive Liberal turnout, but both with the same vexing mathematical scenarios required to explain why the final vote was inconsistent in favor of Republicans outside of the margin of error.Let's bang this out to an extreme to reveal the importance of fully, publicly exploring these sorts of statistical questions:The American populace has become so unpredictable that modern, evolved and tested statistics can no longer predict peoples' actions accurately. The concepts of margin of error and statistical prediction are no longer valid, exit polls are less reliable than they used to be and they are surely at fault because they use direct, post-action interviews to collect data in a consistent fashion and the actual vote is recorded by a variety of methods and machines that operate internally in ways only known secretly by corporations.
geronimoNov 18, 2006
Yup, ever since 2000, exit polls miraculously became unreliable.
manovaNov 18, 2006
The sampling strategy cannot be trusted. They used the same methodology for sampling as they did for the presidential election, a national election. The old saying that all politics is local is especially true when you are talking about House races. Edison/Mitofsky only followed the results of 4 House races. A national sample will not be accurate predictor for local elections.A better method would be to look at the returns in the voting districts that were actually sampled and compare the local exit poll data to actual returns at the precincts.My last problem is the source of the "unadjusted" exit poll numbers. Where are the screen shots of these numbers that disappeared from the website (of course anything posted on a website is 100% correct). Did they verify with CNN that these numbers were accurate? Did some intern post something by mistake to only have it corrected later? They should have gotten CNN to go on the record.
catttttNov 18, 2006
Tin-foil hat brigade to the rescue - even though the Dems won majorities in both houses?Why am I not surprised? Lol.
rationalistNov 19, 2006
Sonofdy, still haven't gotten over losing the election this time, despite all the crap the GOP pulled, have you?
outboardNov 19, 2006
Often times the times used to take the polls may only see a small segment of the voters. These polls assume that both parties show up at the same time. It has been shown that sometimes Republicans do not show up except at opening and near end of the vote. While Democrats may show up in the middle of the day. If you time your poll properly you can affect the outcome. One group was talking about why the poll results are so poorly following what is happening. Some of the possibilities is poll choices may be more one party than the other. No poll will be exactly the same vote percentages. Lets say I want to corrupt the process. I go to polls that are slightly more one party than the other. Another possibility is Democrats look for pollsters while Republicans may shy away. So many of the polls taken in the past few years they over sample Democrats and under sample Republicans.
muyosoNov 19, 2006
No clue how you got dugg up as your post is full of liberal irrationality, which I guess is becoming commonplace on Digg now, but you are totally wrong.First, people don't tamper with votes and lose, why take the chance at getting caught if you are not going to pull out a win for your side.Second, the economy is doing GREAT under Bush, and your claim that it isnt makes you look completely ignorant.
vietvetJan 4, 2007
More data is published at <a class="user" href="http://electiondefensealliance.org/book/export/html/659">http://electiondefensealliance.org/book/export/html/659</a>
nicholaiNov 26, 2007
I can't wait to see what they try to pull when they see that Ron Paul is winning.