Election experts debate returns

[Freddie Stubbs]

Analysis questions e-voting accuracy.

Published Sunday, November 21, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - John Kerry conceded defeat more than two weeks ago, and President George W. Bush has already revamped his Cabinet. But as states certify final election returns, an academic debate over their accuracy is heating up.

None of the experts examining the returns has discovered voting anomalies significant enough to have swung the election.

Despite Internet-circulated speculation that Bush’s victory was somehow stolen or rigged, the incumbent’s clear margin in the popular vote count is much wider than any of the problems reported to date - whether they’re voting technology failures, problems with provisional ballots or partisan shenanigans.

"We conclude that there is no evidence, based on exit polls, that electronic voting machines were used to steal the election for President Bush," researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said in an influential report based on early unofficial returns in Florida.

more: http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004/Nov/20041121News024.asp

[Bozos for Bush]

1. DUPE and DEBUNKED CAL TECH-MIT study

Please don't start threads based on old, debunked information.

John

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Can you please provide a link for the debunking?

[BlueCaliDem]

9. Even Cal Tech/MIT Experts Concede...

...that the UC Berkeley study warrants an investigation.

The UC Berkeley report has not been peer reviewed, but a reputable MIT political scientist succeeded in replicating the analysis Thursday at the request of the Oakland Tribune and The Associated Press. He said an investigation is warranted.

"There is an interesting pattern here that I hope someone looks into," said MIT arts and social sciences Dean Charles Stewart III, a researcher in the MIT-Caltech Voting Technology Project.

Stewart isn't convinced the problem is electronic voting. It could be absentee voting or some quirk of election administration. But whatever the problem, it didn't show up in counties using optical scanning machines. Rather than offer evidence of fraud or voting problems, the UC Berkeley study infers they exist mathematically.

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%7E1865%7E2545623,00.html

Looks like a "debunking" to me.

[tngledwebb]

3. The first three paragraphs contain the right key words-

- Kerry conceded, academic debate, no significant voting anamolies, internet circulated etc. And experts from top universities have concluded there is no evidence of problems 'based on exit polls', using 'electronic voting machines' based on 'early unofficial returns in Florida.' All the fine tuning disinfo you expect from the AP, NYT and WaPo.
Also interesting is 'Letting voting fraud conspiracies die' in comments section. It's all timing.

[tngledwebb]

4. Sorry, forgot to ask..

what's your point of view on this Mr. Stubbs?

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. There are obviously problems with the voting system as

there have been in every election. Were there enough problems to change the outcome? Until I see some hard evidence otherwise, I am not convinced.

[tngledwebb]

6. Ahhh.

Evidence of WMD's also required? Or lack of?

[Nederland]

7. My Position Exactly

Was their fraud? Yes.

Was there enough fraud to influence the results? No.

[tngledwebb]

11. But is it impossible?

Or are you here to tell all of the uninformed, naive and credulous 'CT' folks that stealing votes in America is just too far beyond the pale for the current fascist regime that lied us into two illegal, unjustified, and incompetent and unfinished wars, with fatalities now around 100,000 and climbing?

[pointsoflight]

8. What these idiots fail to consider is this...

...while it is true that the anomalies THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND would not overturn the election, without an audit, you have no way of knowing whether or not there or many more anomalies that haven't been detected. We can sit here and find cases in which there were several thousand more votes cast than there were voters. But we can not easily detect errors that involve 3%, 5%, even 10% of the votes. On the ground audits are needed for this.

Basic logic tells you that for every extreme anomaly we've been able to detect, there are likely to be several more that have gone untected.

[Duncan]

10. Caltech-MIT study debunked

The Caltech-MIT study that is being cited by many as debunking claims of election fraud is based on CNN's "final exit poll" numbers.
CNN's "final exit poll numbers" were adjusted to reflect the tabulated votes, so any conclusions based on those numbers are not valid.
CNN's unexplained "adjustment" is well documented.


link to example of CNN "adjustment":


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1293911&mesg_id=1293911


Notice that the "adjustment" vs the difference in sample size is not possible.
Even if every voter polled after the earlier numbers voted for Bush, it would only have changed the numbers by .03 percent.
CNN's "adjustment" changed the spread by a full 3 percent for males and 6 percent for females! It is a story in itself the way CNN "adjusted" their data.


Freeman's study is based on the raw exit poll data, not some mysteriously "adjusted" data:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf

UC Berkeley study:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041118/sfth066_1.html

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/