TOPICS:
NOV 10, 2008 06:43 PM
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
NOV 10, 2008 07:07 PM
It's true that an election as close as this one has been is pretty much ideal territory for election fraud. Whether that's actually happened? well, hopefully that will come out in the recount if it has.
NOV 10, 2008 07:07 PM
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
Not entirely. But it can be explained by partisan hacks assigning nefarious motives to clerical errors and machine malfunctions that are entirely common to voting all over the country.
There are some more fact-based analyses at 538 here and here.
NOV 10, 2008 07:10 PM
malkav11 said:
It's true that an election as close as this one has been is pretty much ideal territory for election fraud. Whether that's actually happened? well, hopefully that will come out in the recount if it has.
True. The secretary of state has pledged to keep things open and honest. For Coleman to cry foul now is premature.
NOV 10, 2008 07:11 PM
I don't know anything about what's going on in Minnesota ... but John Lott?
*shudder*
petepolly
Antarctica
August 2008
NOV 10, 2008 07:12 PM
Subrosa said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
Not entirely. But it can be explained by partisan hacks assigning nefarious motives to clerical errors and machine malfunctions that are entirely common to voting all over the country.
There are some more fact-based analyses at 538 here and here.
I have no earthy idea if what Lott says is true or not. But if ONE precinct had over half the change, their is rock solid reason to be suspicious.
FYI, both major parties have had people in their ranks engage in election fraud. It is not all that uncommon.
petepolly
Antarctica
August 2008
NOV 10, 2008 07:14 PM
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
over half the change in one precinct?? You think?
NOV 10, 2008 07:27 PM
Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes.
A "relatively comfortable" lead of 725 votes? Out of 2,800,000 cast?
What is this guy smoking? That's about 0.03%.
Only Faux news could call a 0.03% lead "comfortable".
Jackasses. The official recount hasn't even started yet, and note that Coleman was the one very publicly pressuring Franken to concede , "for the good of the taxpayers", since the recount will cost about 80 grand.
Whatta guy.
NOV 10, 2008 07:32 PM
petepolly said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
over half the change in one precinct?? You think?
Actually, that would make good sense . . . if there was one machine that was constantly fucking up.
NOV 10, 2008 07:35 PM
BTW, John Lott conveniently forgets that the number required to be filibuster-proof is 60, not 58.
Don't let the facts get in the way of the fear-mongering!
This is weak and transparent, even by Faux's abysmally low standards.
Oddly, I don't see Lott getting bent out of shape about Alaska, where official vote counts are somehow magically lower than 2004, which (if true) is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster showing up on inauguration day to teleport Bush back to Crawford, Texas.
NOV 10, 2008 07:36 PM
Just for giggles:
A summary of John Lott's suspicious and fraudulent work
Lott Claims Computer Ate His Controversial CCW Survey
In his published research analysis, John Lott has claimed that a 1997 survey he conducted found that concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely few self-defense uses of handguns are ever reported. But when scholars began questioning his survey results, Lott began a series of evasions that culminated in the claim that his computer had crashed and he had "lost" all the data. The University of Chicago, where Lott claims he conducted the study, has no record of it being conducted so Lott began claiming that he funded it himself (and kept no records) and that he used students to make the survey calls (though no students have been identified who participated). Indeed, no records of the survey exist at all. Lott is now facing serious questions about whether he fabricated the entire survey - raising serious questions about his ethics and credibility.
Lott Caught Posing as a Student to Praise Himself and His Work
Lott has recently confessed that to counter growing skepticism from researchers examining his data, he repeatedly posed as a fictitious former student of himself named "Mary Rosh" to praise and defend himself in online forums and debates with researchers. Lott has been doing this since 1999 but was caught when an internet sleuth was curious about "Mary's" extreme defense of Lott and traced the "Mary Rosh" identity back to John Lott's own computer. What else has Lott been fabricating?
Lott Uses Fictitious Name to Push His Book on Amazon.com
John Lott has gone so far as to post a fake glowing review of his book, "More Guns Less Crime," on Amazon.com, using his phony "Mary Rosh" identity. (Lott now claims he let his young son use his computer to post the review). The fake review praises both Lott himself and his book. Amazon.com has now pulled the Mary Rosh review, but this is part of what it said:
"SAVE YOUR LIFE, READ THIS BOOK -- GREAT BUY!!!! If you want to learn about what can stop crime ... this is the book to get. It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well. He explains things in an understandable commonsense way. I have loaned out my copy a dozen times and while it may have taken some effort to get people started on the book, once they read it no one was disappointed. If you want an emotional book, this is not the book for you. If you want a ... book that will explain the facts in a straightforward and clear way, this is the book to get. This is by far the largest most comprehensive study on crime, let alone on gun control."
Mary Rosh
Exhaustive New Study Directly Refutes Lott's "Research"
Professor John Donohue of Stanford has recently completed an exhaustive new study that examined crime data across the country - updating the research that John Lott claimed showed concealed handgun laws reduce crime. Professor Donohue's study, published by the Brookings Institute, directly refutes Lott's findings and demonstrates that the concealed handgun laws (CCW) pushed by Lott and the NRA most likely caused more crime rather than the reduction in crime claimed by Lott. While John Lott's study covered only a short period of time, during which urban crime was already rising, Professor Donohue studied the longer impact of CCW laws. Professor Donohue joins a long list of respected scholars who have debunked Lott's study as flawed and misleading.
petepolly
Antarctica
August 2008
NOV 10, 2008 07:39 PM
Coyotemike said:
petepolly said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
over half the change in one precinct?? You think?
Actually, that would make good sense . . . if there was one machine that was constantly fucking up.
No it does not. How many voters on election day do you think use one machine?
If it is screwing up so bad that hundreds of votes cast on it are wrong, and all wrong in favor of Franken, but not in favor of Obama, or anyone else, that is very very fishy.
NOV 10, 2008 07:45 PM
petepolly said:
Coyotemike said:
petepolly said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
over half the change in one precinct?? You think?
Actually, that would make good sense . . . if there was one machine that was constantly fucking up.
No it does not. How many voters on election day do you think use one machine?
If it is screwing up so bad that hundreds of votes cast on it are wrong, and all wrong in favor of Franken, but not in favor of Obama, or anyone else, that is very very fishy.
Well, to figure out how many would use one machine in one day, one would have to know how many people voted in the preceint (sp?), how many machines were in use in that one place, what sort of machine was being used, the placement of the two names on the ballot . . . a wide variety of variables. Doesn't really work to connect it to the Obama numbers.
NOV 10, 2008 07:51 PM
Coyotemike said:
petepolly said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
over half the change in one precinct?? You think?
Actually, that would make good sense . . . if there was one machine that was constantly fucking up.
I don't know for sure, but it's possible Two Harbors doesn't even use optical scanning; there are still a number of places that count by hand. With a population of about 3000, Two Harbors might be one of those places.
As for the votes changing, this is the very reason I hate the news reporting election results on election night. The numbers they announce aren't certified. They aren't official numbers. Let's have all the votes counted and validated before we announce a winner, huh?
It's not a problem when there's a clear winner, but in a race this close, we don't need that kind of speculation.
Regardless, whether the number is 700 or 200, it triggers the automatic recount. There's no practical reason to decrease the margin, because all the votes are going to be recounted anyway.
NOV 10, 2008 07:53 PM
petepolly said:
Subrosa said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
Not entirely. But it can be explained by partisan hacks assigning nefarious motives to clerical errors and machine malfunctions that are entirely common to voting all over the country.
There are some more fact-based analyses at 538 here and here.
I have no earthy idea if what Lott says is true or not. But if ONE precinct had over half the change, their is rock solid reason to be suspicious.
Not really, unless you're one of those hysterical fools who fanatically deny Occam's Razor at every opportunity. Rather, there is rock solid reason to think that precinct had voting irregularities leading to the swing of around 300 votes. Which, in the grand scheme of things is not a big deal and is relatively common. It only seems like a big deal to people who don't understand proportions and statistics and common voting issues.
FYI, both major parties have had people in their ranks engage in election fraud. It is not all that uncommon.
That's fascinating. It would be relevant if there was actual evidence of election fraud here. At the moment, there is none other than partisan innuendo.
petepolly
Antarctica
August 2008
NOV 10, 2008 07:57 PM
Subrosa said:
petepolly said:
Subrosa said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
Not entirely. But it can be explained by partisan hacks assigning nefarious motives to clerical errors and machine malfunctions that are entirely common to voting all over the country.
There are some more fact-based analyses at 538 here and here.
I have no earthy idea if what Lott says is true or not. But if ONE precinct had over half the change, their is rock solid reason to be suspicious.
Not really, unless you're one of those hysterical fools who fanatically deny Occam's Razor at every opportunity. Rather, there is rock solid reason to think that precinct had voting irregularities leading to the swing of around 300 votes. Which, in the grand scheme of things is not a big deal and is relatively common. It only seems like a big deal to people who don't understand proportions and statistics and common voting issues.
FYI, both major parties have had people in their ranks engage in election fraud. It is not all that uncommon.
That's fascinating. It would be relevant if there was actual evidence of election fraud here. At the moment, there is none other than partisan innuendo.
Vote swings 300 out of 3000, only for one candidate, not for any other races, and I have a problem with numbers and understanding statistics.
Right....
NOV 10, 2008 07:59 PM
petepolly said:
Subrosa said:
petepolly said:
Subrosa said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
Not entirely. But it can be explained by partisan hacks assigning nefarious motives to clerical errors and machine malfunctions that are entirely common to voting all over the country.
There are some more fact-based analyses at 538 here and here.
I have no earthy idea if what Lott says is true or not. But if ONE precinct had over half the change, their is rock solid reason to be suspicious.
Not really, unless you're one of those hysterical fools who fanatically deny Occam's Razor at every opportunity. Rather, there is rock solid reason to think that precinct had voting irregularities leading to the swing of around 300 votes. Which, in the grand scheme of things is not a big deal and is relatively common. It only seems like a big deal to people who don't understand proportions and statistics and common voting issues.
FYI, both major parties have had people in their ranks engage in election fraud. It is not all that uncommon.
That's fascinating. It would be relevant if there was actual evidence of election fraud here. At the moment, there is none other than partisan innuendo.
Vote swings 300 out of 3000, only for one candidate, not for any other races, and I have a problem with numbers and understanding statistics.
Right....
Yes. You do.
NOV 10, 2008 08:03 PM
petepolly said:
Vote swings 300 out of 3000, only for one candidate, not for any other races, and I have a problem with numbers and understanding statistics.
Right....
The dinky little town that contains my house isn't even big enough to be called a town; it's a borough. Population is about 2,000 people, and lots of people voted - every book I saw was full. They had two voting machines for the election. If one machine malfunctioned it would be easy to get 300 votes.
Please refrain from tinfoil-hatting until you actually have reason to do so. The recount is coming, and if Coleman is that bent about it he can request court supervision of the recount.
Also, as mentioned above, John Lott has zero credibility. I'll wait for the recount, thanks.
NOV 10, 2008 08:05 PM
Subrosa said:
petepolly said:
FYI, both major parties have had people in their ranks engage in election fraud. It is not all that uncommon.
That's fascinating. It would be relevant if there was actual evidence of election fraud here. At the moment, there is none other than partisan innuendo.
Indeed. Election fraud actually is uncommon here. I'm looking for some statistics, but my internet connection is being a pain in the ass. However, as anecdotal evidence, I can say that I don't remember any significant election fraud occurring in MN within my memory, and I've never even heard stories from my elders.
Wait...I may be wrong; I think the largest election fraud in history happened here a while back. Something to do with exotic dancers casting fake ballots in a city election in an attempt to change zoning laws so they weren't run out of town, or some such.
The Day Strippers Tried to Take Over City Hall
petepolly
Antarctica
August 2008
NOV 10, 2008 08:08 PM
Subrosa said:
petepolly said:
Subrosa said:
petepolly said:
Subrosa said:
Coyotemike said:
I have to ask . . . can this be explained by early voting and provisional ballots?
Not entirely. But it can be explained by partisan hacks assigning nefarious motives to clerical errors and machine malfunctions that are entirely common to voting all over the country.
There are some more fact-based analyses at 538 here and here.
I have no earthy idea if what Lott says is true or not. But if ONE precinct had over half the change, their is rock solid reason to be suspicious.
Not really, unless you're one of those hysterical fools who fanatically deny Occam's Razor at every opportunity. Rather, there is rock solid reason to think that precinct had voting irregularities leading to the swing of around 300 votes. Which, in the grand scheme of things is not a big deal and is relatively common. It only seems like a big deal to people who don't understand proportions and statistics and common voting issues.
FYI, both major parties have had people in their ranks engage in election fraud. It is not all that uncommon.
That's fascinating. It would be relevant if there was actual evidence of election fraud here. At the moment, there is none other than partisan innuendo.
Vote swings 300 out of 3000, only for one candidate, not for any other races, and I have a problem with numbers and understanding statistics.
Right....
Yes. You do.
Uh huh sure I do.
10% of the votes in one precinct shift *before the recount* on one race from one party to the other, and not on any other race and other significant change, in that precinct and it is not reason to be suspicious.
You may be a lawyer, but your are not a mathematician.
NOV 10, 2008 08:12 PM
petepolly said:
Uh huh sure I do.
10% of the votes in one precinct shift *before the recount* on one race from one party to the other, and not on any other race and other significant change, in that precinct and it is not reason to be suspicious.
You're looking at it the wrong way. You're somehow implying that this would be more likely if there were 300 incorrect votes spread out across multiple precincts. That's just not the case. If there is a vote counting deficiency, it's actually much more likely that the bulk of it happens in one precinct rather than many. (Moreover, if you look at the reported cause of this particular deficiency instead of swallowing whole the ignorant rantings of Fox News, this would make a lot of sense) The fact that it's 10% of a very small vote total in a particular precinct is not very relevant. It's a very small percentage of the OVERALL vote total. This is the important number. You can jump and scream to the contrary, but you'll be wrong. Which, you know, you should be used to by now.
You may be a lawyer, but your are not a mathematician.
And your are not a grammarian.
NOV 10, 2008 08:16 PM
One of the examples given today on the news by a fellow being interviewed about this was when they called one precinct to verify the numbers, the conversation went like this:
"You reported 27 votes for Franken."
"We did?"
"Uh. Yes."
"It was 127."
Fuck ups happen. Regardless, I still sort of doubt that it'll be a Franken win. I hope, but doubt.
If they were committing voter fraud, they did it in a really dumb way.
"Hey guys, let's wait until after election day to do our fraud. That way, the entire nation will be watching."
"Do we want the nation watching our voter fraud?"
"'Do we want the nation watching our voter fraud?' Shut up! Of course we do! Look how it worked for the Republicans! Damn it, Lennie!"
"Oh. Sorry, George."
NOV 10, 2008 08:19 PM
More Minnesota Madness (via FiveThirtyEight with contributing background from DailyKos)
Slightly under 10,000 people under voted in the presidential race while the under vote in the Senate race was almost 3.5 times that amount (34,916). Some of the under voting in the Senatoral race was intentional among a small percentage of voters who didn't like either candidate and chose not to vote, however, it appears that a substantial number of votes might not have been counted due to possible tabulation errors. While the intention of the uncounted votes remains unclear, there is a slight possibility that the recount could swing the election safely back into Franken's hands. Only time will tell though...
Under voting primer:
When an ballot is cast, but a race or ballot measure is not checked or voted on, it is called an under vote. There are several explanations for an under vote such as voter error, such as forgetting to mark or incorrectly marking their choice or overlooking part of the ballot (i.e. forgetting to check the backside of a paper ballot to see if there are further races or skipping a race on an electronic ballot before forgetting to return back to it), voter intention or indecision (choosing not to vote on a race because they either can't make up their minds or they simply don't like the choices given), and finally, under voting can also occur because of counting and scanning errors (either because of "bad" marks, "hanging chads" or other equipment or tabulation errors).
The problem with under voting is that it is often overlooked except in close races that can trigger a recount which (thankfully) allows each vote to actually be counted (well, sort of). Legal battles over voter intention with under counted ballots are likely (thankfully, there won't likely be a repeat of Florida's problem resolving the same issue but with dimpled vs hanging chads).
Oh, and you want fishy? I'll give you fishy. 1/3 of the vote remains uncounted?!? Talk about a baked Alaska.
NOV 10, 2008 08:29 PM
From the OP article:
Despite the press pushing a possible replay of election judges divining voters’ intentions by looking at “hanging chads” to see if voters meant to punch a hole, that shouldn’t be an issue in Minnesota. The reason is simple: optical scan vote counting machines return ballots to voters if no vote is recorded for a contested race.[emphasis added]
This isn't true. Our optical scanners don't return undervotes. They return overvotes and some other ballot problems, but the machine is perfectly happy if you don't vote for a particular race. I often don't vote for things such as county water supervisor. I just don't have enough information on the candidates to make an informed decision. Call it poor civil involvement on my part. But I've never had a ballot rejected by the machine.
As I recall, if you, say, check the bubble instead of fill it in completely, the machine treats it as an undervote and accepts the ballot. However, upon going over the ballots by hand, the intent is clear. So, there is kind of a "hanging chad" issue, but it's usually much easier to resolve.
We even have laws to determine the criteria for intent and such. Amazing, isn't it?
petepolly
Antarctica
August 2008
NOV 10, 2008 06:35 PM