TruthIsAll's got a book coming out.

[byronius]

TruthIsAll brought me to DU. I followed him religiously, along with AutoRank. In 2005, the Election Reform Forum was front and center on this site.

Some may argue that the issue is dealt with. It is not. Not at all. The United States suffered an electoral coup in 2004, and the principal conspirators are still out and about and doing the Sunday talk shows.



richardcharnin.com

TruthIsAll.net



No, I haven't gotten over it.

[democraticinsurgent]

1. good move

glad to hear this is getting published.

[Oregone]

2. With all due respect, that looks like a stats textbook

Im not trying to be mean, but the cover alone could use a marketing makeover (from the graphics to the title). If I had to pick between that or Twilight to read on a deserted island, I would choke on my tie.

[johnaries]

24. TIA was a hella statistician. It may not be a "mainstream" book

but it will be a major reference book. It's up to the rest of us to push the message, but TIA will give us the ammo to use.

[Emit]

3. Congrats, TIA!

:thumbsup:


And thanks, byronius, for the heads up.

[Patsy Stone]

4. Way to go, TIA!

I've never gotten over it either. :thumbsup:

[Cleita]

5. Happy to hear that.

I miss him here on DU.

[vanboggie]

6. Excellent and very needed!

This is the issue a Dem Congress should have dealt with FIRST. If those smarmy Rethugs get their paws on the White House again, we're done. If they "win" by cheating again in 2012, we'll know that the Mayans were right. Seriously, this book is needed. I hope there's a big media blitz to publicize it.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Thanks for posting and congrats to TIA n/t

[Mojorabbit]

8. Congrats to truthisall

I also was glued to the election reform forum for ages before I explored the rest of this site. I also still have not got over it.

[LoZoccolo]

9. How many people who think he did important work actually understand the math behind his charts? n/t

[BeFree]

18. Yeah, it's tough to do

But what he has shown is that the chances of the numbers of the 2004 presidential election being true are like a million to one.

Haven't read the book but I will, and it will be a hard slog. Thing is the people who can understand it better than I, will then feel encouraged to stand up against the voting machines.

But if there is a question you need an answer too, ask. It may be easy to answer.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. no, that's what people were led to believe that he had shown

What he mostly showed was that the exit polls really, really didn't match the official returns. Doh.

[BeFree]

54. Part of his fine work

He showed that the computer generated counts were not supportable. That the official counts had very good reasons to be questioned.

So then a true patriot must ask:

"How in the fuck can we know who was really elected?"

The Truth Is All answer is: We can't.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. no, other people did that

It's kind of silly to give TIA credit for other people's work on voting machine security.

[BeFree]

64. Silly?

What is silly is accepting at any time any of the machined counts as correct.

Unless there is an audit of at least 10% of all the ballots.

Since we know that audits are not performed, then there can be no trust. NONE.

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. I accept your concession n/t

[TheWatcher]

79. Still sleeping, huh?

What a surprise.

[LoZoccolo]

85. Right, because personal attacks are stronger than the laws of math. n/t

[TheWatcher]

95. They must be, because you use them religiously, and then pretend like you know something.

If it were a comedy act, it would be entertaining.

[eridani]

10. What with health care, I've put election reform on the back burner

2008 had just as much hankypanky as 2004, but unfortunately too many Dems stopped caring just because we had enough of a margin that it didn't matter.

It's a sad fact of life that politicians aren't usually scientists. Most of my own data reporting errors have not actually affected the practical decisions of a single process engineer, but I always acted as if they had. That's because next time it might matter, and I needed to have my protocols fixed by then. Tell a congresscritter that his/her total was really 58% and not 56% and they'll just say " Geddoudahere! I'm trying to write legislation."

[truedelphi]

23. Lynn Woolsey, House Rep for Marin County Calif.,

Was quite good about listening to facts about the need for election reform.

So was Barbara Boxer. Though lately Boxer has been all into how evil the Tea Baggers are, and how she needs to be saved from them. (The numbers are not big enough for you to get concerned, Senator. Let's talk abt some real issues.)

[demodonkey]

38. Well stick it back on the front burner because we are in for a heluva ride in '10 and beyond...

Dems better start caring about this and fast. This nonsense that Obama won so everything is now OK is just that -- total nonsense. But far too many stopped caring because (you are right) in 2008 we had enough margin on our side that it didn't seem to matter.

Well, watch out, because 'taint going to be that way in 2010 or 2012.

Democrats ignore election integrity at the peril of their party. And nothing -- nothing -- including healthcare is going to improve as long as elections can be rampantly stolen or they simply fail due to lousy equipment and procedures. Especially if nobody really cares.

HAVA touchscreens are beginning their 5th year of use and some will be reaching the end of their rated lives this year. They'll reach the end of their useful lives soon after that -- meaning that machine failures or maybe even staged machine failures (golden opportunity for fraud) will start becoming more and more commonplace.

And what will replace the aging machines? INTERNET VOTING ??? :scared:

I've said it once and I'll say it again -- support the election integrity organization of your choice. And please don't forget the smaller, in-state election reform organizations that put the actual boots on the ground in so many areas.

And PS -- I care about healthcare as much as the next person (my mother and I are at real risk of unjustly losing our home RIGHT NOW because of it unless we get real help in the next few days) but I fight on for fair elections because this is still the at the CORE of every other issue including healthcare.

[Kip Humphrey]

75. Well said, DD

:hi: :hi: :hi:

[Hawkeye-X]

11. Skinner should seriously consider reinstating TIA

TS'ed way back in 2004 - he was right all along.

Hawkeye-X

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Amen, Hawkeye.

TIA is one of the great ones.

Hell, I don't even remember what he did to earn the pizza.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. No he shouldn't.

The dude was a total fucking asshole. He got banned for being an asshole.

[Robb]

22. I would qualify that

...He lacked the ability to hold back from making asshole posts.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. Is there a difference between being an asshole and lacking the ability to not be an asshole? n/t

[hfojvt]

30. sure, I can see a couple of possibilities

one could be a mostly nice person who gets their buttons pushed and unloads in posts here, perhaps they don't suffer fools gladly
or one could be an a$$hole who can control letting it show in his/her posts.

[Myrina]

41. ... if that's the only reason he was banned ...

... then the population of DU should drop by about 90% by the end of today.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. That wasn't nice.

I won't touch this thread with a ten foot poll or is it pole.

[unblock]

26. being right or wrong has nothing to do with getting banned, only rules violations do.

i can't really comment on the specifics because i was a moderator at the time he was tombstoned. i will only say that the action was taken after quite a lot of moderator discussion and consideration.

what i will say is that, generally, long time du'ers who get banned can get themselves reinstated, but only if they approach the admins and make it clear they understand the rules and agree not to violate them in the future. beyond that, it's up to the admins to determine if the plea is genuine and the person can abide by the promise.

[Cleita]

55. He was harassed by the real assholes to the point of breaking where

he let loose on his tormentors. I know. I ran into them trying to defend him after his TSing.

[Jax]

96. yep

he was right all along.

reinstate TIA.

[Stevepol]

12. I wish him all the best. I hope it's a national best-seller.

But knowing the deep sleep people are in about this issue, I doubt many people will believe what he's saying. If he were the most talented writer in the world, they probably wouldn't pay much attention.

I'm very pleased he's written the book. He was one of the people who helped me get thru those dark times. The stats people are still out there comparing polls and so-called election results and TIA is one of the better ones I suspect.

Problem is there's no way to know anything for sure as long as the vote is counted in secret without verification. The stats are about the only way we can have even the slightest idea what the actual results were in any given election.

People will say the usual: you can't prove that there has been any fraud in any election.

The point is you can't prove that there hasn't been either. So I will say it here: I think the 04 election result was bought and paid for before it took place and the wrong guy was judged the winner. And not just the 04 general election but the 00 election of Gore and the 02 GA election and many other elections around the country since voting machines began to count the votes w/ very little auditing or w/o any auditing at all, in many cases w/o even any paper to use to have a real audit.

If anybody thinks he can prove me wrong, have at it.

[Igel]

21. Given math education in the US,

it might be.

[southernyankeebelle]

14. Brad Blog covered it allot. Especially the death of one of the men that

handled the computer systems. You are right. I still never got over it.

[Pab Sungenis]

15. I hope someone who knows a few things about elections and about statistics

get a chance to review the book and tear it to shreds. Not that there wasn't fraud, but his "simulations" proved nothing.

[Usrename]

33. He proved that the exit polls were rigged in 2004.

You have to understand the history here. In 2000, during Bush v Gore, Voter News Service got it right, they called FL for Gore and they KNEW on election night that many votes for Gore were actually missing. The KNEW this before all the returns were in. About 50,000 votes for Gore were spoiled, 15,000 in Palm Beach/Broward area and another 20,000 in Duval County. Aparently, one of every five black voters in Duval County voted TWICE for president.

In any event, the controversy of the stolen election was used to disband the Voter News Service, the only true watchdog organization we had. Instead, a bunch of disinformation experts were hired (Edison/Mitofsky) to create fraudulent exit polls. They even bragged about it on their website before they even got started. They claimed that they would not repeat the "mistakes" that Voter News Service made in the 2000 election. Well, anyone who was paying attention KNOWS that VNS got it right in 2000 and the Supreme Court got it WRONG.

Anyhow, TruthisAll proved that the Edison/Mitofsky exit polls were bogus and fraudulent.

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. oh, jeepers

If the exit polls were "rigged," "bogus and fraudulent," why in hell are we even discussing them?

And why do you keep posting wrong information about Florida in 2000? Assuming for the sake of argument that Gore should have won the state by about 1 percentage point, that is not what the exit poll projections indicated when the state was called for Gore. No one would have called the state based on a one-point margin either way.

[Pab Sungenis]

87. He did no such thing.

Flipping a coin a million times (which is more or less what he did with his "simulations") proves nothing. You can't prove polling accuracy or inaccuracy through simulations.

[Moochy]

102. simulations can't prove anything?

Better sign up and start making your edits to this Wiki page!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method#Application_areas

[tiptoe]

124. +1 nt

[nashville_brook]

16. f'n a! right on TIA!

[bleever]

17. History won't get over it. Why should we?

Crime of the century, affirming the theft of 2000 and the resultant deaths of over one million people, and the collapse of the global economy.

TIA has my utmost respect, admiration, and gratitude.

We didn't change history, but we stood up for it.

[autorank]

31. We changed our history! k*r

I can't wait to read this. I've heard some interesting things about it. I'm sure it will
be a great source of anxiety to the PTB.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Is his book going to be as stupid as his posts, for which he got banned from here? n/t

[kenfrequed]

42. Hmmph.

He seemed to know his stuff based on a cursory evaluation. Were you thinking maybe about elaborating on you broadside?

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. been here, done this

TIA has spent most of his time "proving" that the 2004 exit poll results are very different from the official returns. One doesn't really have to know much (statistics or anything else) to see that.

At that point, people should ask: does it seem more likely that Kerry won New Hampshire by about 1 1/2 points (official returns) or closer to 15 (exit poll)? Minnesota by about 3 1/2 (official) or over 14 (exit poll)? Pennsylvania by about 2 points, or almost 14? New York by 17 points, or 31? Vermont by 20 points, or over 36?

To anyone who followed the campaign, it ought to be pretty obvious that a lot of the exit poll results don't make much sense. One can use statistical analysis to come to the same conclusion, but it isn't really needed.

That doesn't prove that the official returns are right, or even approximately right. But relying on data that are facially unreliable is not a good idea.

[Imajika]

58. I tried to explain this for many months...

...it just didn't matter, a lot of people were just determined to believe this silly stuff.

Such a waste too. The guy is a mathematician I think, clearly decent at creating charts and graphs and whatnot. It is like spending a lifetime searching for the answer to an entirely flawed question.

All the time and energy just utterly wasted because TIA keeps creating this conspiracy around an assumption that the exit poll numbers were good numbers. He views the state by state exit polls (done by the same service) as sort of entirely different sets of numbers and believes if one state deviates that this should not effect the exit polling in other states. Yet the very people who conducted the exit polling disagree and have explained why the 2004 exit polling was more inaccurate than usual in this election cycle. If methodology and polling practices lead to bad results in one state, they will probably lead to bad results in others.

"At that point, people should ask: does it seem more likely that Kerry won New Hampshire by about 1 1/2 points (official returns) or closer to 15 (exit poll)? Minnesota by about 3 1/2 (official) or over 14 (exit poll)? Pennsylvania by about 2 points, or almost 14? New York by 17 points, or 31? Vermont by 20 points, or over 36?"

Yup. It is pretty obvious those exit poll numbers were absurdly wrong. Some people just toss common sense out the window though, they want to believe whatever fits their world view.

Oh well, TIA is probably a good guy. A true believer and I guess we all gotta believe in something. I admire his tenaciousness at least.

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. one quibble about "methodology and polling practices"

I think it's important to keep in mind that people decide whether they are willing to participate in exit polls. It's easy to say (not that you said this) that the 2004 exit poll would have gone better if the interviewers had been better screened and better trained, but it might not have gone much better.

Election Defense Alliance tried to do a sort of gold-standard exit poll in LA County in 2008, and by their own admission, they ended up with a ferocious oversample of Republicans. Maybe too many of their interviewers looked like hippies (or whatever) -- but maybe it was completely beyond their control.

I'm sure TIA means well, but I do wish he would lay off the pseudoscience.

[BeFree]

62. heh

Given the numbers of UNCOUNTED votes, and given the fact that TIA found that the exit poll people did in fact manipulate their own poll findings to match the official machine generated counts, then his suspicions are well founded and no one has ever used math to defeat his ideas.

If anyone is wasting their time and energy, it is you. You can't provide one iota of evidence to support the machined vote. All you have is a silly belief that it is correct.

TIA is a true patriot. Others? Not there just yet.

[kenfrequed]

67. Uhm first off...

Source? For your exit polls that is. You seem to be comflating them in an effort to make the mans argument look absurd.

Secondly exit polls are traditionally the most reliable polling available and the international community frequently uses them to measure the possibility of fraud.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. I seem to be what?

As to my source, I used the evaluation report. See pp. 21-22. If you find smaller margins, they are probably based on composite estimates that factor in pre-election expectations, not exit poll data alone.

Now, I look forward to your source for the assertion that "exit polls are traditionally the most reliable polling available." What does that even mean, "traditionally"? (As a bonus question: even if your assertion is true, so what?)

(Edit to fix link)

[kenfrequed]

73. I look forward...

To your posting a link that actually works.



Most election monitoring agencies that operate internationally use exit polling as a guide to ascertain the legitimacy of elections. You know more have to cite a source for something that is used nearly universally and trusted as an indicator except in special cases (like America in 2004 or 2000).

Do a little homework on it and look to elections that are considered questionable or compromised by international election monitoring. Other than blatant intimidation and harassment of voters, one of the more common indicators for problems is an exit poll.

But America is a special magic land where the machines all work perfectly and butterfly ballots fly to never-never land to and from Florida whispering that Jews in 2000 actually wanted to vote in large numbers for Pat Buchannan.

[OnTheOtherHand]

76. the link is fixed now

(The filename begins with "eval," and the /eval evidently was being resolved to nothing.) I'm curious why you didn't find it yourself, or know about it.

Most election monitoring agencies that operate internationally use exit polling as a guide to ascertain the legitimacy of elections. You know more have to cite a source for something that is used nearly universally and trusted as an indicator except in special cases (like America in 2004 or 2000).

I'm sorry to tell you that repeating something doesn't make it truer. Charitably, you're engaging in wild hyperbole here.

Do a little homework on it....

Yeah, I already have, and that's how I know you're engaging in wild hyperbole. That said: your claim, your burden of proof. I'm not going to do all the work here.

[kenfrequed]

86. Oh?

So in Haiti, Somalia, Ukraine, Venezuela, the United Kingdom and many other countries Exit polls are a useful and accurate way to project with intense accuracy but somehow in America they obviously failed because the only other explanation would be that Bush lost.

And I too have a link to a shorter paper here that is not a mea culpa written by the pollster. Granted he is an MBA but he does a fairly decent job going over some of the high points (despite a few generalizations)

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/exit-poll-discrepancy-1110.pdf?q=exit-poll-discrepancy-1110.pdf


And precisely what part of what I said was wild hyperbole? The existence of electoral fairies has been proven for centuries and I honestly can't believe why anyone would...

Ok look, you can only accuse someone of hyperbole if they are conflating an argument beyond reason in a manner that still has the possibility of believability (no matter how ridiculous). Talking about an 'axis of evil' or 'evil doers' or 'death panels' are all examples of hyperbole. It is only hyperbole if it is part and parcel of the argument itself. If I am describing an unreal element in the story that is NOT to be believed, then it is probably sarcasm.

Colorful descriptions of things that actually happened to poor Jewish voters in Florida and that were well documented by the media is no more argumentative hyperbole than it was these unfortunate voters intent was to vote for Buchanan. Dismissing the fact that these voters were deprived of their vote because I through in colorful language or allusions is an absurd standard by any stretch of the imagination.

I would ask if you did any reading into well documented voter suppression and disenfranchisement in Ohio in 2004 and how they impacted the vote. I would also ask whether or not you at least paid some attention to any of Greg Palast's reporting on the elections of 2000 or 2004.

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. goalposts ducked; you still haven't lifted a finger to support your claim

If you have some evidence that exit polls have manifested "intense accuracy" in Haiti, Somalia, and Ukraine, it would be interesting to hear how you think you know. But it isn't what you asserted before. And no, if it were true, it still wouldn't have any bearing on my unrebutted point about the implausibility of the exit poll results.

Steve Freeman really isn't credible on this issue. (ETA: But for what it's worth, I think he has a PhD in organizational dynamics, not an MBA.) But if you want to present one of his arguments, feel free. If you're just Google-bombing, I'm not impressed. I think this issue actually matters. Do you?

And precisely what part of what I said was wild hyperbole?

To make this easy for you, I quoted precisely that portion in my preceding post. Maybe you could start with a list of "election monitoring agencies that operate internationally," and inform us which ones use exit polls.

[kenfrequed]

92. And you still don't seem to understand argumentative hyperbole

Versus plain old fashion sarchasm.

It really wouldn't matter what I said, you just ignore it and pretend it isn't relevant anyhow. I am sorry but feining ignorance of the process of international election monitoring and forcing me to go scrounging the internet for news articles describing it to you seems like an absurd waste of time to me.

You either have to believe one of two things:

A: That election monitoring does not make use of exit polling as a test for validity of an election

or

B: That somehow other countries make use of it but that it, for one reason or another, does not count in America.

Those are really the two likeliest answers and neither satisfy the question.



By the way I also find it odd that a Democrat seems to ignore Palast's reporting and Conyers investigation into Ohio in 2004.

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. actually, both of those have some truth

If you had taken a few moments (maybe one third the time it took you to compose your content-free response) to enumerate election monitoring organizations, you might be surprised how few of them use exit polls. (One leading organization -- probably the first one you would have listed -- has actually recommended against using them.) But you were not willing to take even that degree of initiative. I can't tell whether you have the sneaking suspicion that you're wrong but don't want to deal with it, or whether that possibility is beyond your imagination. It's a pretty discouraging performance either way.

As for the second, while I've never asserted that exit polling "does not count" in America, I do assert that if you proved it to be accurate in other countries, that still would not alter the implausibility of the results I cited. (I tactfully passed over your reference to Venezuela, but if you think the 2004 Venezuela exit poll -- which showed Chavez losing by double digits -- was accurate, it really would behoove you to explain that.)

I haven't ignored Palast and Conyers. Based on this discussion so far, I would wager that I am more familiar with them than you are.

[kenfrequed]

99. And yet...

You don't bother to cite these organizations by name either instead throwing out 'one leading organization.' You may as well say "people are saying" or "the word on the street is..."

The very sins of argumentation you accuse me of you seem to be using yourself. I must say that I find it curious that you cite the Venuzuela exit poll as somehow being evidentiary when it was criticiszed and completely contradicted by Jimmy Carter, the Organization of American States, and the European Union. All of which had legitimate election monitoring organizations and their own exit polling on the ground. All of which also conduct exit polling at any of the countries they are carrying out election monitoring.

You seem to throw out a new accusation that you don't bother to back up with every post. Goal post moving (which I think would have required me to actually change a threshold of proof) and then your misuse of the term hyperbole. When I answer these you accuse me of not posting something substantial. Everytime I answer a post you have some new brush to paint me with. What is your game with this. Was this guy that much of a holy terror that he couldn't be right about the polling data at all?

[BeFree]

100. heh

You do know that poster is the main reason TIA got so pissed off?

[kenfrequed]

103. Huh...

Nope, I didn't know it.

But I am unsurprised by it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

101. O RLY?

...Jimmy Carter, the Organization of American States, and the European Union. All of which had legitimate election monitoring organizations and their own exit polling on the ground. All of which also conduct exit polling at any of the countries they are carrying out election monitoring.

I finally got you to mention some organizations. Now, where is the evidence that they do their own exit polling on the ground? I have asked you this very straightforward question repeatedly. Why don't you answer it?

And why won't you say anything about the U.S. exit polls? If you won't present your own evidence, how about addressing mine, instead of trying to gin up a diversionary flame war?

Now, to back up....

I must say that I find it curious that you cite the Venuzuela exit poll as somehow being evidentiary...

Actually, you are the one who brought up exit polling in Venezuela. I'm glad you concede that exit polls can be way off -- if only in Venezuela.

[kenfrequed]

104. Uhm no.

All those other organizations also had polls in the field as I had stated. They were the ones that refuted the poll you mention using data from their own. In fact the organization that conducted the ONE poll that was incredibly far off was a law firm out of New York that is suspected of cooking their data to embarass Chavez and create the appearance of impropriety.

Your selective use of this poll is curious. Of course it is entirely possible I intentionally led you to that point in this discussion only so I could then point out the organizations that used legitimate polling to counter it. But I am really not that clever.

And your use of ellipses is a bit inappropriate as you aren't supposed to use them to eliminate pertinent or qualifying information.

[OnTheOtherHand]

107. you've STATED it, yes, and I am calling your bluff

If you have any evidence that all those organizations had exit polls in the field, now would be a good time to present it. Heck, you could start with one.

Otherwise, your evasions are wearing pretty thin.

(Your failure to address U.S. exit polls is noted, once again.)

[kenfrequed]

111. There is no bluff

There is just you ignoring anyone that contradicts your opinion of the result of the 2004 election. I really don't know what your stake in this is.


For an unknowable reason you, a democrat, prefers to believe that exit polling is flawed and by extention that the repeatedly problematic and provably fallible computerized voting machines are accurate. I can't possibly imagine why you cling to this.

I don't know what your game is and frankly I don't care. Exit polls have been used accurately the world over and, though they can occasionally be manipulated, they are the most accurate form of polls available. I stand by this statement as it was my original statement. If you can find a more accurate variety of poll let me know.

Screaming at everyone else to cite record of, what is common practice all over the world, is silly.

[OnTheOtherHand]

114. are you conceding that these organizations didn't field exit polls?

Do you even care? Really, it's as if you don't read your own posts. Maybe not mine, either.

For an unknowable reason you, a democrat, prefers to believe that exit polling is flawed...

I, a Democrat, actually presented evidence that exit polling is flawed. If you would care to man up and discuss the matter, that would be most welcome. Yeesh.

[kenfrequed]

119. What you presented...

Was a mea culpa by the polling agency itself which was seeking to salvage its reputation in the face of two possibilities.

They could:

1- Refute Bush's victory by letting the polling data stand and attempt to weather a media shit storm.

or

2- Try to put out a document suggesting some slight technical problem and claim that it has been corrected.


If you go with #1 then congratulations you win the prize! You will never be looked on as unbias or objective again and the entire conservative media machine will heap scorn and distortion on you enough to make their obsession with Acorn look like a passing novelty.

I find their assertions about the inaccuracy of their poll completely unconvincing and that many of their suggested arguments regarding sampling error or the idea that Democrats are more likely to answer exit polling completely uncredible and unprovable.

[OnTheOtherHand]

120. what on earth are you suggesting?

Are you proposing that the exit polls in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont actually matched the official returns, but Edison/Mitofsky pretended that they were inaccurate in an attempt to -- wait for it -- "salvage its reputation"?

Really?

If not, then what are you saying, pray tell? Are we even allowed to discuss the results of the 2004 exit poll? If not, what in hell are we talking about?!

[kenfrequed]

121. Absurd

Ad absurdem.

No, obviously if the polls matched there would be no reason for a mea culpa. Quite obviously I am pointing out situations where the polls did not match up to the vote. Frankly I can see no reason for suggesting this inverse argument on your part.

Actually throwing this inverse argument out violates several arguments of logical fallacy, which I find ironic considering the number of times you accused me of such.

But whatever...

[OnTheOtherHand]

123. great, so, how are you not conceding my original point?

TIA has spent most of his time "proving" that the 2004 exit poll results are very different from the official returns. One doesn't really have to know much (statistics or anything else) to see that.

At that point, people should ask: does it seem more likely that Kerry won New Hampshire by about 1 1/2 points (official returns) or closer to 15 (exit poll)? Minnesota by about 3 1/2 (official) or over 14 (exit poll)? Pennsylvania by about 2 points, or almost 14? New York by 17 points, or 31? Vermont by 20 points, or over 36?

If you think you can evade those questions by speculating about Edison/Mitofsky's motivations for writing the report, I would like to know why. I gave it my best shot.

[tiptoe]

106. OnTheOtherHand helped Salon's Farhad Manjoo write his widely-debunked rebuttal of RFK Jr.

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ and an Introduction to Election Fraud Analytics

...
In June 2006 Farhad Manjoo in Salon Magazine wrote a rebuttal to the RFK Jr. Rolling Stone article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Manjoo’s rebuttal was soundly debunked by a number of well-respected election researchers who cited many factual and logical errors. In the article, Farhad claimed to have consulted with Mark Lindeman as a primary advisor in writing the piece.
...

 

[OnTheOtherHand]

108. and your point?

If you want to discuss any of the content of Manjoo's article -- which I think was more right than wrong -- I'm game. Am I allowed to dare you?

However....

In the article, Farhad claimed to have consulted with Mark Lindeman as a primary advisor in writing the piece.

Evidence, please? It might be flattering to be credited as a "primary advisor" to a Salon article, but I think TruthIsAll is just making stuff up again.

ETA: Basically, this boils down to: "Don't pay attention to this person's disagreement, because it's a known fact that he disagrees!!1!" :eyes: (Oh, but let me be fair: you don't say, "Don't pay attention." Maybe you really don't have a point. Who can say?)

[kenfrequed]

109. Mr Pot may I introduce you to mr Kettle.

I called you on your specious arguments repeatedly and you just ignored them. You accused me of goal post shifting and you accused me of hyperbole. When I challenged you on both accusations and you ignored my challenges. I suspect your accusations of fallacy were really just attempts to brush off discussion on the matter.

[OnTheOtherHand]

110. you aren't making any sense to me at all

What specious arguments have you called me on? And why on earth won't you address facts about exit polls instead?

Really, maybe you're confusing yourself here, but don't you think everyone else can see who is trying to avoid discussing the matter?

ETA: Seriously, are you missing it? If you make a claim and then, when asked to support it, make a different claim instead, why shouldn't I call that shifting the goalposts? Wouldn't you?

[kenfrequed]

113. I'm tired of this dance.

Lets boil this down to brass tacks so I am going to ask some questions and rather than whining about my source not being valid or my desire to not spend hours of wasted time citing every country that has ever used an exit poll lets just deal with the matter at hand.

Do you or don't you believe in the validity of exit polls?


Do you or don't you believe they are used in elections around the world?


Do you believe the results of the 2004 presidential election, particularly those results in Ohio?



That should about do it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

115. OK, I am calling your bluff again

Do you or don't you believe in the validity of exit polls?

I don't know what you mean by "validity," and I am not convinced that you know either. If you are asking me whether I think that exit polls are invariably accurate within sampling error: no, of course I don't. If you are asking whether I think they are invariably wrong: no, of course I don't believe that either. If you ask a better question, I will try to answer that, too.

Do you or don't you believe they are used in elections around the world?

"Used"? Of course. But your claims have gone far beyond that. Once again, you are moving the goalposts.

Do you believe the results of the 2004 presidential election, particularly those results in Ohio?

I think that Bush probably got more votes in Ohio and nationwide, yes. I don't believe that massive machine hacking or malfunction altered the outcome.

Now, I've answered a bunch of your questions, and I will invite you once again to answer one of mine: do you have an iota of evidence that the organizations you mentioned fielded exit polls in Venezuela in 2004? Let me be clear: I don't even think this issue matters much, except as a matter of intellectual integrity.

[kenfrequed]

118. Answers first

I presumed that since most election monitoring organizations use some polling that they must have done a bit of it as well. Not an unreasonable assumption considering how often they are used. I will concede that finding percise methodology on what techniques were used by field observers seems to be a bit more daunting that I assumed it would be. For the sake of putting it aside I will admit that I cannot find the information you have requested. But I would add that I cannot find ANY of the methadology the other organizations used to ascertain the accuracy of the vote.

I would again point out that the organization that did the exit poll against Chavez was actually part of a funded operation to delegitimize him internationally. http://www.borev.net/2006/12/dont_cry_for_me_venezuela_disg.html Of course this is beside the point, just wanting to clear the air with regard to that.


Now with that aside...

Apart from wrangling over the definition of validity and accusing me of asking a bad question you seem to suggest you do not think that exit polls are as accurate as people seem to think.

A follow up question then: "Are exit polls more or less accurate than other forms of polling?"


Apart from that you seem to admit that they are used but, and (*sigh* again)I really can't ascertain you motive, but you seem to refute that they are used as an indicator as to how legitimate an election is. Again you toss in a question about my "moving goalposts" or whatever.

I thought I stated very clearly that I was putting these out questions aside from the original argument in an attempt to refine your positions but as you like it.


Having read the Conyers report and countless articles about the topic I just cannot agree with you on the idea that Bush legitimately won Ohio in 2004. Since you seem obsessed with the idea that he did win it despite tons of testimony to the contrary I come the conclusion that there really isn't a lot of common ground here.

[OnTheOtherHand]

122. thanks, that somewhat clears the air

I hope you can understand my frustration at being bludgeoned with facts that I don't believe to be factual. I agree that that exit poll was especially incredible, which is why I was rubbing my eyes at your reference to Venezuela. Venezeula actually had two vote count audits that year, which help to support the substantial accuracy of the official returns. (Not long ago I read a statistical paper that tried to argue for extensive fraud; it was quite poor.)

I do think that exit polls are less accurate than you seem to think -- I won't generalize about "people." Exit polls do, as Freeman says, have the advantage that the respondents know if they voted (or tried to vote) and presumably know who they voted (or tried to vote) for. On the other hand^TM, considering that voters have substantial discretion about whether to approach (or to be approached by) the interviewers, and that voters can see the interviewers, one would expect exit polls to be subject to different social effects than telephone polls. (Presumably 'secret ballot' exit polls should be less subject to those effects than actual in-person interviews, and it seems that they are.)

Election Defense Alliance has presented really strong evidence about exit poll bias, which surely is not something the organization set out to do. Check out pages 38-40 or so (in the Scribd pagination) of their report here. Here is a money quotation from page 39:

By comparing the tables above, it is seen that Republican voters were undersampled in all 10 polling places, by ratios ranging from 1.16 to 1 at Taft High School to 2.5 to 1 at Topanga.

If I told you that Republican voters were undersampled by ratios like that in the 2004 national exit poll, you'd be entitled to incredulity. Yet this is EDA describing their own exit poll, in which they did a lot of work to get the most reliable results possible. By their own account, they were way off. Now, they think that they found a way to compensate for that bias, and I think they are wrong, for reasons I'm glad to elaborate upon. But if people aren't willing to subject exit poll results to rigorous scrutiny in the wake of this report, I think they are whistling past the graveyard. And I do mean scrutiny -- not that exit poll results should be assumed to be wrong, any more than they should be assumed to be right.

Sometimes you could stand to focus less on trying to "ascertain (my) motive" and more on the meaning of the words! Just saying. Yes, I think what you will find is that the U.S. government and certain NGOs have supported exit polls as an election transparency measure; the Carter Center has opposed the use of exit polls as a transparency measure; international organizations tend to downplay or disregard their results. (Check me on this, but my recollection is that the OSCE observer report on Ukraine didn't mention the exit polls at all. Even Lugar's official statement didn't mention them, although he alluded to them in press conference Q&A.) The bag is much more mixed than you apparently have been led to believe.

Since you seem obsessed with the idea that he did win it...

Frankly, I think it would be fairer to say that you seem obsessed with finding some reason for evading a factual discussion. But maybe we could set aside the imputations. I'm game if you are.

I don't think the Conyers report proves that Kerry did or would or should have won; the report itself doesn't claim so; you will find that the dominant opinion of political scientists, regardless of their political leanings, is that it proved no such thing. We could be wrong, but it isn't that none of us read Conyers or RFK Jr. Moreover -- and it really bothers me that so few people understand this point -- a lot of what the Conyers report describes would not have affected the exit poll results. Kerry probably lost at least 10,000 net votes in Franklin County due to lousy machine allocation, but the people who were turned away are not likely to have filled out exit poll questionnaires. Using the Ohio exit poll results to buttress the Conyers report is simply backwards.

[johnaries]

25. Hell, YEAH! The only reason we won in 2008 is because

the election was overwhelming. They simply couldn't "cheat" enough to win. But in coming elections they will become even more desperate and brazen.

We NEED honest elections.

Thank you, TIA! Thank you for the perserverance you have shown. We all need that same perserverance if we are to solve the many, many problems that faced us in the past and will face us again in the future.

:patriot:

[slay]

28. K&R - TIA has had THE BEST election fraud data

and is also the reason I joined DU back before he got shitcanned from here. K&R for TIA and election fraud awareness!

[BlueIris]

29. Thank you so much!

Happy to hear about this.

[madokie]

34. I've been passing TIA's writings here on to a few friends

to read ever since I first arrived on this place.

Congratulations to TruthIsAll

[tritsofme]

35. There is a 99.989877% probability

that I will not be wasting my time.

[WeDidIt]

40. +1

:thumbsup:

[deaniac21]

43. LOL Stupidest statistician of all time!

[tiptoe]

125. -1 n/t

[progressoid]

44. snort

That brings back a memory or two. :rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. you should have a keyboard macro for this :) n/t

[Gman]

36. TIA's assumptions have been wrong from the very beginning

and that leads to wrong conclusions. Lots of numbers doesn't mean the numbers are right.

[HughMoran]

70. Agreed

Sadly, it's been a huge waste of a perfectly talented person. Oh, well.

[pleah]

37. K AND R! Congratulations!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[WeDidIt]

39. .

:tinfoilhat:

:eyes:

[Greybnk48]

45. One of the first DU'ers I got to know when I came here in 2004.

I'm not over it either, and people like Richard are putting themselves out there in hopes that it doesn't happen again.

Edited to add: Bravo T.I.A.!!

[Raster]

49. Fuck NO, I haven't gotten over it.

[Helga Scow Stern]

50. Congratulations, Truth Is All!!! I haven't gotten over it either.

It is amazing, the depth and strength of denial about this happening. I hope that TIA doesn't take people's ignorance too personally.

Bravo!

[crazyjoe]

51. I sure do miss his mad skills with MS Excel...........F***kin Yawn, and he

even included one on the cover of his book!! Yay

[robertpaulsen]

105. Wait a minute. You joined DU on March 5, 2009. TIA was banned in 2005.

I don't get it. Just how long were you a lurker before joining? Or did you miss TIA's contributions under a former identity?

[Echo In Light]

52. But!...but!....but!.....

k/r

;)

[EFerrari]

53. Great!

[OneBlueSky]

56. there were two brothers, James and Kenneth Collier, who began documenting . . .

voting irregularities in 1970 and carried their work out through at least 1992 . . . I believe they are both now deceased, but the first eight chapters of their book Votescam: The Stealing of America are available to read online . . . really fascinating stuff . . .

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

as for the hard copy of their book, I recall looking for it a couple of years ago and had absolutely no luck . . . and it seems that the main Votescam website is no more . . . these guys were on to something really big before just about anyone else, and the few chapters you can read online are positively eye opening . . .

if anyone knows where a copy of the book might be obtained, please post it here . . . I'd really like to read the whole thing at some point . . .

[EFerrari]

69. I remember those two. n/t

[BeFree]

91. yep

the theft of votes has been going on ever since the first votes were cast.
Nowadays they have fancy computer vote stealing that can be done over the internet.

[H2O Man]

57. Recommended!

Thanks for posting this. I'm definitely going to but copies of this book.

[FourScore]

59. Excellent! k/r

[HughBeaumont]

63. And rec.

And fuck the debate-closing crew.

[colsohlibgal]

66. I Will Never Get Over It

I think of all the damage Dubya/Darth did and know that they were never really elected. 2000 was a coup pure and simple. Gore kind of helped it along by him being in a big hurry to give up election night and not immediately asking to have all counties recounted but nonetheless...this was in the end a very close race and if the Court had not stopped the counting Gore would have been president because they were recounted and by any chad situation possible Gore won - this story got buried on page 8 of the NY Times and died. There was a large protest in January 2001 at Dubya's inauguration and the networks didn't mention it and bent over backward to shoot angles that showed none of it.

Then there is 2004 and Kerry won handily. The results of the exit polls showed that but when the vote was tallied the result was flipped.

Somehow there was a conclusion that the exit polls were wrong, not the vote.

There have been many, many other strange flip flops from what polls showed along the way as well, including Cleland's senate seat loss.

Now so much of the vote is calculated by these computers from big companies run by right wingers. Stalin of course is famous for saying that the power does not belong to the people who vote, it belongs to the people who count the votes.

We need to go back to a system that is fool proof and completely transparent and verifiable. Yet voting issues and problems including mysterious results get almost no play on the major media.

[malaise]

68. I'll be buying that book

Rec

[Melissa G]

72. Thanks for the post! Congrats to TIA!

:toast:

[KoKo]

74. K&R...Good News!

[yellerpup]

77. If we don't get voting right we are doomed.

:kick:

[Echo In Light]

78. Too late

[yellerpup]

82. Love your sig line.

OK, voting is broken. We can fix that if we have the will.

[Echo In Light]

83. The process of who and WHY that who is chosen needs to be fixed

... as opposed to having the people/systems already responsible for fucking us over get to choose which candidates/admins are "electable."

[yellerpup]

84. Good point. n/t

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robertpaulsen]

81. I'll never "get over" anything that TPTB lie about or sweep under the rug.

That would also include the theft of 2000 as well as 2002.

Hell, just off the top of my head, that would also include not getting over:

*Operation Gladio

*BCCI

*Iran Hostage Crisis October Surprise

*Contra coke smuggling

*JFK, RFK, MLK and Paul Wellstone assassinations

*9/11

*Anthrax mailings

*Sibel Edmonds

*Niger Forgeries

*AIPAC espionage

*Valerie Plame

*Don Siegelman

*CIA MK-ULTRA




I could go on, but I'll get back to living my life. Still doesn't mean I've "gotten over it". I don't forget or forgive my government when it deceives us.

[bananas]

89. k&r nt

[yowzayowzayowza]

90. Good gawd.

[Mind_your_head]

93. The electoral coup happened in 2000!

What are you a revisionist?

[byronius]

94. Naw, you're right. 12/12/00.

[Swamp Rat]

112. k&r

[Ellipsis]

116. kick

[BeFree]

117. I see your kick and raise another. n/t