Here's Dial-in Info for Berkeley press conference. LIVE NOW!

[milkyway]

Here's the dial in number to listen to the actual conference: 302-709-8433, passcode: 44347114#. You'll need to give your name. It's live right now.

Thanks, markusd
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1001078#1002469

[eleny]

1. What's going on?

[Kralizec]

2. Thanks man. Listening now. Will add if somehting juicy comes out. n/t

[batchdem04]

3. please do!

[Oreo]

4. Did you just lose sound?

woohoo! 300!

Calling back in doesn't help.

[New Earth]

5. yeah

i lost sound too :(

[Kralizec]

6. yes. n/t

[milkyway]

7. Yes I did. I redialed back in, but still nothing there.

[milkyway]

9. Probably DUers flooding the phone system. :)

[John Q. Citizen]

8. more info

Here's the dial in number to listen to the actual conference: 302-709-8433, passcode: 44347114#.

They posted their data at

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/

They also will be taking questions- CALL IN!!

[New Earth]

10. uh

i'm still getting nothing

[crispini]

11. Hey, these things only have a limited number of connections.

So may I suggest that if you're not a journalist, DON'T CALL.... let those who have called in already update the rest of us and save the connections for the journalists.

[Kralizec]

12. I was connected but I got the silence

[New Earth]

13. an operator just came on

and said that all calls are in a muted status, and to please hold for my presenter

[IAMREALITY]

14. Just heard a conversation

with an operator and another person. Not sure if I was supposed to hear it. They said they will be taking questions from callers, and the passcode is 43460764? not sure what that one is for. Anyone else hearing this stuff?

[Kralizec]

15. got it back

[milkyway]

16. At least we can read their paper. It's up here:

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/index.html

their main page is here:

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/

[Kralizec]

17. Can we ask questions?

Put questions here just in case.

[Woo]

18. So ummm...

Basically if you look at the summary of findings --

To place it in lay terms... the Republicans are a bunch of

THIEVIN' BASTARDS...

I knew it.

[Kralizec]

19. So far:

Ok -- So far he says that he is just raising an alarm about what he and his collegues consider information that is irregular. He said that he tells everyone that there is smoke, but now it is time for the Fire Department to do their job. I guess this can be looked in several ways, heh. More to come.

[milkyway]

20. The published report says they also looked at Ohio, but found no effect

of electronic voting on results.

"We also examined the effect of electronic voting machines and
baseline support for Bush on change in percent voting for Bush in Ohio.
The OLS regression model used percent voting for Bush in 2004 by county
as the dependent variable and baseline support for Bush and electronic
voting as independent variables, as well as an interaction effect
between baseline support for Bush and electronic voting. Without
controlling for change in voter turnout, size, median income, Hispanic
population, or percent voting for Dole in 1996, we found no effect of
electronic voting on change in percent voting for Bush from 2000 to
2004 in Ohio."

[jdog]

21. I like the report's opening line:

"Public discussion of changing voting technology raised concern that some forms of electronic voting might produce a discrepancy between voters' intentions and tabulations of the election's outcome."

[Woo]

23. Common sense...

Would dictate -- and doesn't take a lot of fancy math to figure this out -- that there would not be any noticable change in Ohio if you place results against the 2000 election -- Bush won against Gore by what 200,000 votes in Ohio?? Sorry I don't have figures -- this is off the top of my head -- if you are expecting similar results in 2004 than you wouldn't find anything odd about Ohio -- you could not apply the same math in Ohio as you would apply in Florida.

Would you?

Signed,
::: mathematically inept:::

[witchhazl]

27. Ohio result?

I don't understand any of the mathematics of this, but I think also the type of voting mechanism can introduce confusion. In FL, they definitely (per VerifiedVoting.org) used "touch-screen electronic voting" in a number of counties. But in Ohio they only used that same technology in ONE county. (I didn't think to check who the vendor was.)

And also according to VerifiedVoting, a number of Ohio counties used what they called "electronic voting: other." I don't know how that differs in practical terms. And we don't know whether any vote "irregularities" might have occurred at the level of individual machines, or at a centrally located tabulator.

So I guess I would suppose that this Berkeley group used all the e-voting counties, both touch-screen and "other"? But who knows if that's really the place to look.

[Woo]

29. I was...

Responding to the bit taken from the UC Berkeley report that says they didn't find any significant irregularities in the Ohio vote -- but if you look at the OH vote Gore lost by just a little more than Kerry is losing by currently -- so wouldn't different conditions apply in Ohio is my common sense question -- since FL was extremely close in 2000 would stand to reason FL might be close in 2004 -- Bush would not have won by nearly 400,000 votes --

In OH -- conditions changed quite a bit between 2000 - 2004 -- such as the huge amount of job loss ... exporting of jobs -- etc, etc... democrats had a huge GOTV campaign in this state, much bigger than the Republicans -- not that these factors would most definitely make the state closer -- but would stand to reason that they probably would -- what we're seeing is it basically stayed the same in Ohio in terms of people voting for Kerry and Bush -- doesn't add up --

I don't see how UC Berkeley report can contribute the same conditions they used to find Kerry is missing a ton of votes in FL -- to Ohio -- that's all -- someone smarter in these matters is welcome to explain it to me.

[indy_azcat]

24. Common problem of definition

They consider optical scan (Optech, Accuvote, etc.) as non-electronic. E.g. only touchscreens are elctronic, even though scan-trons are plugged-in-electronic readers, and are (black-box) computer tabulated.

Guess they're not engineers or IT peeps:)

[milkyway]

26. Good point. They're really only testing the effect of touchscreens.

[Carolab]

31. No effect of E voting in Ohio because

it was the optically scanned ballot tabulators.

Write them and tell them what we have seen.

[Kralizec]

22. Over now.

I should have asked them who was there reporting, but I got scared. I wonder if any MSM was there...

[troubleinwinter]

25. Local ABC news reported it (11:00 a.m local, No. CA)

I expect the local noon news on other stations will report it. First story was Clinton Library, second was the news conference.

[milkyway]

28. Wow, I wouldn't have expected it to be so prominently placed.

Let's make sure CNN and everybody else picks up on this. The stolen election might finally hit the mainstream.

[BreakForNews]

30. Audio Here of Berkeley Vote Research Press Conference 18 Nov 2004

Here's raw audio of the Berleley Press Conference
by Prof Michael Hout on their election research findings.

A cleaned up version will be available
later today on http://www.BreakForNews.com

Listen Live mp3
http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/mrn/audio/InsideTrackNews041118.mp3

Download Zip & Listen Offline mp3
http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/mrn/audio/InsideTrackNews041118.zip

More on this in our regular news show.

Fintan Dunne, Editor
http://www.BreakForNews.com