Your Cons utional Right to Vote? Lol...

[Parker2112]

so you think paperless voting should be addressed.

k, you already mentioned that earlier.

Was there an ulterior motive for trying to lay out Obama birthers, the left, and the mill sheep here that are putting forth their best ostrich impersonations?

I guess to expose the joke that is the two party paradigm. And the fact that so many here take part. And finally how many folks' egos wont allow them to admit engage issues which they fail to comprehend, so they stick their collective heads in the sand.

"The two party system works, dammit! My party is best!"

[Wild Cobra]

Stinger, I found the information I was looking for. The 2004 Ohio vote had Bush winning 2 of the 3 types of voting systems. Kerry won with the e-voting system. The logical conclusion, with the way it can be tampered with, is that someone cheated for Kerry. Not Bush.

System... Kerry/Bush

E-Vote... 51.94%/46.73%
Op-Scan. 43.88%/54.31%
Punch.... 47.44%/50.21%

[Winehole23]

Was there an ulterior motive for trying to lay out Obama birthers, the left, and the mill sheep here that are putting forth their best ostrich impersonations?

I doubt it. Parker's very proud of himself. Maybe he just wanted to rub it in our faces a little.

We're all too dumb to be his echo on this issue. We've proven that much, I think.

[Winehole23]

All so called evidence of that went nowhere, because there is no evidence. Just allegations. You talking about the Ohio incident?

Election day 2004 was a damn mess in Ohio.

I'm personally unsure that the irregularities were enough to swing the election, but it looked a damn mess to me. Maybe even worse than Florida in 2000, but I guess we couldn't afford another judicial wrangle for the presidency so soon after the first one, so the irregularities went by the boards.

I will say I think having machine codes be proprietary trade secrets and unreviewable by election officials is bogus. If there's a problem, the officials need to see to the bottom of it. In this case, the public weal trumps property rights, or it should.

[Wild Cobra]

Election day 2004 was a damn mess in Ohio.

I'm personally unsure that the irregularities were enough to swing the election, but it looked a damn mess to me. Maybe even worse than Florida in 2000, but I guess we couldn't afford another judicial wrangle for the presidency so soon after the first one, so the irregularities went by the boards.

Well, one reason it was a mess is that allotments of machines per precinct was determined by past participation. When an added influx of people occurs, there are not enough machines. If people don't regularly vote, they can expect that .

I will say I think having machine codes be proprietary trade secrets and unreviewable by election officials is bogus. If there's a problem, the officials need to see to the bottom of it. In this case, the public weal trumps property rights, or it should.

I agree. This whole electronic thing is puzzling to say the least. there always needs to be a paper trail.

Those responsible should be fired, or worse.

[Parker2112]

I doubt it. Parker's very proud of himself. Maybe he just wanted to rub it in our faces a little.

We're all too dumb to be his echo on this issue. We've proven that much, I think.

You mistake my own frustration with impenatrable egos for my own pride.

I have stated my limitations over and over again on this board. Your attempted personal attack fails.

[Blake]

I have stated my limitations over and over again on this board.

Was that before or after you posted the Ickey Woods jpeg?

[RandomGuy]

Stinger, I found the information I was looking for. The 2004 Ohio vote had Bush winning 2 of the 3 types of voting systems. Kerry won with the e-voting system. The logical conclusion, with the way it can be tampered with, is that someone cheated for Kerry. Not Bush.

System... Kerry/Bush

E-Vote... 51.94%/46.73%
Op-Scan. 43.88%/54.31%
Punch.... 47.44%/50.21%

So different counties had different voting machines, and astonishingly they returned different percentages?

Have you isolated the data in your graph from the party affiliation in the area?

...or

Did you make a conclusion about data without considering confounding variables?

[Winehole23]

You mistake my own frustration with impenatrable egos for my own pride.

I have stated my limitations over and over again on this board. Your attempted personal attack fails.

Float like a butterfly sting like a bee. Nobody ever lays a glove on you.

(You ignored my straight reply and focused on the aside. Telling.)

[Wild Cobra]

So different counties had different voting machines, and astonishingly they returned different percentages?

Have you isolated the data in your graph from the party affiliation in the area?

...or

Did you make a conclusion about data without considering confounding variables?

I lifted the chart from a large excel file another guy did. His premise, if you loo at the Optiscan, is that the cheating was there. He goes through statistical analysis to make his point. There is tons of data if you click on the graph.

Look at his data, make your own conclusions. I love using people's work and use it against them, as I do with this one. The guy who made it was pro-Kerry.

[Blake]

I love using people's work and use it against them, as I do with this one.

It must feel good thinking you've finally turned the tables for a change.

[RandomGuy]

There is tons of data if you click on the graph.

i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2004ohioelection.jpg

There might be, but not the data that would help determine if you were talking out your ass, yet again, or not.

EDIT

I take it back the graph was hyperlinked. Duh.

[TeyshaBlue]

There might be, but not the data that would help determine if you were talking out your ass, yet again, or not.

EDIT

I take it back the graph was hyperlinked. Duh.

Doh!

[RandomGuy]

Stinger, I found the information I was looking for. The 2004 Ohio vote had Bush winning 2 of the 3 types of voting systems. Kerry won with the e-voting system. The logical conclusion, with the way it can be tampered with, is that someone cheated for Kerry. Not Bush.

System... Kerry/Bush

E-Vote... 51.94%/46.73%
Op-Scan. 43.88%/54.31%
Punch.... 47.44%/50.21%

That isn't a logical conclusion at all.

It also doesn't explain the fairly strong Pearson correlations. How do you explain that?

Or the very strong skews in certain counties?

Both of which are statistically improbable.

[Wild Cobra]

I take it back the graph was hyperlinked. Duh.

I do that quite a bit. Usually, if I don't add the link I lifted something from with data, or an article, and do not separately make a link. I link embed the link in the graphic.

I try to give the author credit one way or another.

[Wild Cobra]

That isn't a logical conclusion at all.

Two of the three systems favor Bush. The one that doesn't, which is proven to be prone to electronic manipulation, favors Kerry. the accusation is that these E-Systems were tampered with to give Bush the win. If tampering was done, why is the margin so small, and favoring Kerry?

It also doesn't explain the fairly strong Pearson correlations. How do you explain that?

Which graph in the link do you refer to. There isn't enough data to support your contention in the graph I posted.

Or the very strong skews in certain counties?

So. Statistics don't make facts anyway.

Remember, John sKerry was running.

Both of which are statistically improbable.

Again, statistics don't make facts. Besides, i was only showing evidence that the E-voting system appears not to be altered to favor Bush.