What percent of intended votes for Bush were switched to Kerry?

[bleever]

On the touchscreen, that is.

If we look at the reports of people trying to vote for one candidate, and having it *accidentally* show up as the other guy, how do those numbers break out?

Just the facts, please, based on reported voters.

[Wilms]

1. Election Incident Reporting System

It's listing a few thousand complaints.

But something tells me the machine problems that took a big bite out of Kerry were not visible to the voter.

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapNation&tab=ALL&cat=02&start_time=&start_date=&end_time=&end_date=&search=

[bleever]

2. Thanks, Wilms. You're absolutely correct.

Whatever the observed and reported discrepancies were, there were very likely many more that were unobserved, and unreported. Under-reporting is a fact of life for this kind of thing.

But for this thread, I just wanted to focus on the straightforward observed, reported data.

A few thousand is a good sized-sample, if there's any discernable pattern or trend.

:)

[KaliTracy]

8. unobserved-that's the ticket -how many people randomly click "ok" on their

computer screen without reading the Dialog box? A hell of a lot. I do it sometimes -- even though I "know" better (and have been extremely sorry for it).

I also think that for some of these people -- if they had to try and make it register a couple of times before it "took" that many would be reluctant to report -- after all, it "took" and we all trust our government processes, right? And if some of us happen to be vocal about things that don't seem right, very often we are ridiculed or shot down, and some people just don't want to make waves. Hell, before this fiasco I pretty much was for not making waves, too....

I understand what you ate trying to do -- just had a comment that needed to pop out! *smile*

[bleever]

9. That's a great point. We're in a situation where we're trusting the

whole infrastructure (e.g., Microsoft Windows or federal elections) and they say, implicitly, that everything's set up for what we all know should happen here.

And it's a little complex and confusing, which is why we trust these experts in the first place, but we assume they've done their very best, and if there's any confusion, it's probably our fault, so we won't make waves, as long as it seems that we've completed the process correctly.

But you said this much more elegantly than I did, so:

Thanks!

:)

[KaliTracy]

10. np -- this thing just reeks, and it still bothers me. touchscreens aren't

supposed to be that "sensitive" -- not in this day and age -- we use them in almost all of our service industries (restraunts, stores, etc.) and if things were "uncallibrating" that often and people were getting the wrong items, or paying the wrong amount, the corporate office would have a hissyfit. Why anyone is taking this as "oh well, that happens sometimes" in terms of the voting is beyond me... it does not make sense. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! :)

[bleever]

3. Kick for Friday. Also, what are the odds if this happening randomly?

Thanks.

[TruthIsAll]

4. 86/88 =97.5%: Prob =1/ 79, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 n/t

[bleever]

5. Is that 1 in 79 sextillion?? Those seem like mighty long odds

that this was random.

Hmmm...

[helderheid]

6. But they wouldn't steal would they??

You bet your ass they would.

[bleever]

7. Remember, these are only the instances that were NOTICED and

REPORTED.

Which means that we could come up with longer odds, if we needed to.

The only thing we don't know is the aggregate total of votes switched or defaulted to * on these touchscreen machines.

Actually, TIA has probably presented enough info that it could be deduced.