Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chomolungma who wrote (6574)	12/27/2000 1:47:50 PM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 6710

I agree. Which is why the Democrats approve of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County. I wonder how quickly this will change.

To: chomolungma who wrote (6574)	12/27/2000 2:37:39 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Chomolunga - I tried a number of times to strike up a discussion on this particular article. ... The problem is that the article is a mix of apparently sound reasoning and statements of fact that either turn out to be false or misleading. Without being able to actually tally the exact content of the overcounts, there is probably no answer. In the article, precinct 144F is noted with a single vote for Bush. In fact, this is one of the few precincts that looks like it was clearly correct with an 8 votes to 1 Gore lead corresponding exactly to a 8 votes to 1 Nelson(D) lead over McCollum(R) in the Senate race. In the initial stories, it was claimed that Buchanan could not possibly have received the votes that he did. With the 1996 primary figures, the Reform Party registration numbers, and the Afro-American running mate, this argument simply does not stand up on its own. However, looking at the precinct data, large numbers of Buchanan votes come from the precincts that are heavily Democratic, either over 90% black or 90% elderly white. To my mind this does rule out a surge of Buchanan support, but would be consistent with both highly inexperienced and misdirected voters and actual ballot tampering. The claim that Palm Beach was unique in the degree of voter error simply does not hold water. Similar results are likely to be found in almost every heavily Democratic precinct in the country. It is an almost inevitable result of the massive Democratic efforts to register people, legal and competent or not, who cannot explain what an election is, let alone successfully participate or remember if they did so. What is clear from the Palm Beach County precinct data, is that as a precinct falls below 30% Republican, the probability that a voter who votes for the Republican Senate candidate McCollum also casts a vote for Bush simply collapses. In Republican or mixed precincts, the Bush vote generally exceeds the McCollum vote by several percent. In heavily Democratic precincts, on the other hand, the opposite is true. While this could be the case if ballots were tampered with, it could also be that Republican voters who are greatly outnumbered in their precinct feel pressure to not vote for Bush. Regards, Don

To: chomolungma who wrote (6574)	12/28/2000 8:20:15 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

chomo, chomo.......I started reading that article and didn't even get close to finishing it. Here's why:(and by the way, how come all of a sudden you're lovey-dovey with statistics? Seems to me I heard nothing but guffaws on this thread when the Miami Herald's "statistical analysis" showed Gore won Florida.) First, we're talking about two different counties with two different methods of voting, and of all 67 counties, these were the two whose printed voting instructions conflicted with the actual ballot. But the main reason for my chuckle is, how the hell would anyone have time to alter 19K ballots overnight? "Democratic operatives?" That would have to be planned back in August. And if you're willing to go there, you need help.