Uh Oh... 2000 All Over Again?
NumbersNotFound
Join Date: 2002-11-07 Member: 7556Members
Join Date: 2002-11-07 Member: 7556Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">It's beginning.</div> I was reading BoingBoing today and came across <a href='http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/04/palast_kerry_won_her.html' target='_blank'>this</a>.
A decent article... but they make the assumption that the exit polls are... accurate? Since when have they ever been accurate?
1. You don't have to participate
2. You don't have to give the right information
3. There is a TON of stuff they ask (not just "who did you vote for?")
So.. i don't see how the heck he can say that the exit polls were accurate.
A decent article... but they make the assumption that the exit polls are... accurate? Since when have they ever been accurate?
1. You don't have to participate
2. You don't have to give the right information
3. There is a TON of stuff they ask (not just "who did you vote for?")
So.. i don't see how the heck he can say that the exit polls were accurate.
Comments
But sure, trust the exit polls.
Who says those 200,000 something ballots would all go for kerry, and not be split between the two...
Exactly my thoughts. There's always conspirists. (sp?)
There seems to be something similar going on here, but thems the breaks as they say. Some votes are going to be thrown out, its unavoidable, and no matter how statistically accurate exit polls are we can't believe them over the actually counted ballots. (speaking to noone in particular) Come on guys, as much as we hate to believe it, bush won this one fair and square.
In case anyone is interested in my opinion on the matter:
"Breaking news: In the election between cancer and poilio, the people decided on a winner!"
<a href='http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0' target='_blank'>http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0</a>
<a href='http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0' target='_blank'>http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you just sealed it in the hole; anything by BBC has a potential for conspiracy theory; the only media center I know that gets persecuted for slandering their own government.
And if it's not a conspiracy theory, then it's just plain old stupidity
<a href='http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0' target='_blank'>http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
OH, so a BBC Journalist wouldn't be biased towards bush at all?
Pfff.
<a href='http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0' target='_blank'>http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you just sealed it in the hole; anything by BBC has a potential for conspiracy theory; the only media center I know that gets persecuted for slandering their own government.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's just because Britain's slander laws are idiotic and actually hinder the freedom of the press. They were - the public was told - designed to stop the merciless character assassination and tailgating of celebrities and the royalty. One look at The Sun's front page and anyone can see this didn't happen. What did happen was that the better quality press is mortally afraid to offend large corporations and politicians with accusations of foul play since they are likely to get spanked in the court even if they are 100% correct on their articles.
<a href='http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10500.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10500.shtml</a>
<a href='http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?offset=0&catid=&showall=&sort=' target='_blank'>http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblem...&showall=&sort=</a>
<a href='http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif' target='_blank'>http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif</a>
Made me raise my eyebrow at least.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Gahanna incident is just one confirmed mistake and was discovered by activists on the Internet. It was a fairly easy "glitch" to detect given the large discrepancy between the head count at the polling station and the votes for Bush. Given this voting error one must ask, how many more glitches occurred that only involved tens or hundreds of votes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laughing my butt off at these, honestly who thinks that the mistakes are the norm? If mistakes are the norm then they wouldn't be 'mistakes'. Nice call on trying to say the election is bogus.
Here's another term: Poor losers.
To your second link:
It implies that since ALL of these errors (read: 41 errors out of a nation of 120 million voters. That's pretty damn good.) would somehow cause the kerry election to have been lost?
Laughable. Not only that, but poll errors have always been around, yet strangly enough I never saw these happen when Bill Clinton was put in the white house... strange.
To your third link:
Exit polls are conviencing sampling. Anyone with a high school course in statistics can point out the problems with conviencing sampling. Or at least they should be.
But since the democrats are the smarter people of this world, I'm surprised they haven't picked up on the fact that exit polls are the biggest pieces of trash out there.
Polls don't win the elections, votes do.
Laughable. Not only that, but poll errors have always been around, yet strangly enough I never saw these happen when Bill Clinton was put in the white house... strange.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually there were 255 errors, and some were significant like giving Bush an extra 3800 votes. Thanks for reading the article. And mistakes like these never happened because they are specifically linked to electronic voting systems, and this happens to be the first presidential election they are used. Thanks again for reading the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Exit polls are conviencing sampling. Anyone with a high school course in statistics can point out the problems with conviencing sampling. Or at least they should be.
But since the democrats are the smarter people of this world, I'm surprised they haven't picked up on the fact that exit polls are the biggest pieces of trash out there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, since you volunteered, what exactly are these gross sources of error for exit polls? They have been proven to have an error of .5% in the past, and since they do a random sampling, than obviously I must be missing something.
Since you failed to address the purpose of that chart, it shows the paper ballots compared to the electronic ballots. Anybody whose even seen statistics knows that a trend of exit votes that fairly match the election results end with the introduction of electronic voting systems knows that these results are curious at worst.
I am not suggesting conspiracies, I am merely noting the possibility of electronic voting systems to be easily tampered with and/or have error. Corporations like <a href='http://www.blackboxvoting.org' target='_blank'>these</a> are investigating possible voter fraud and the like.
I'm glad republicans take the time to actually read material before they start drawing conclusions that show direct lack of knowledge of the topic and abysmal reading comprehension.
Woah woah woah, back up buddy. Judging all republicans by forlorn would be like judging all democrats by michel moore.
Woah woah woah, back up buddy. Judging all republicans by forlorn would be like judging all democrats by michel moore. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad someone said that before I exploded in rage.
Never ever steriotype a population based on the statement of one person. Expecially not Forlorn.