|
On October 31 2012 11:09 Probe1 wrote:
This has been brought up every (election) year since the inception of electronic voting machines. Widespread fraud is yet to be conclusively proven despite many investigations.
BluePanther sufficiently destroyed the credibility of the few conspiracy websites linked. BluePanther 1 Crappy links 0.
It has been proven that electronic voting fraud is (1) easy (2) not traceable. Voting machines don't use encrypted data and the software they use is publicly available. Electronic voting machines used extensively in previous elections have been recalled before for being extremely vulnerable.
But you're right it's never been "proven" on a widespread scale.
|
On October 31 2012 10:41 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:37 Sermokala wrote:
Er I'll just defer to what prince said a few posts up. Yeah but your first post implied republicans get away with supposed voter fraud because of no ID. I still don't understand how a voter ID would prevent a computer program from "flipping" 10% of the votes as this op suggests. There is no way in hell an ID would ever be linked to how you vote.
I defered to him on why voter id is something that the dems want and the reps don't sorry I should have put that in there.
|
Posted 3 times the Election thread. Didn't get the reaction you wanted, so you make it's own thread.
There are reports here in Texas that people voting for an all republican ticket and getting counted for an all democrat ticket. Better start calling fraud!
I like how they updated their original letter so it doesn't contain the crappy english and spelling. Makes it look less amateurish.
Thanks for the links BluePanther. Was cool to read.
|
On October 31 2012 11:20 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:09 Probe1 wrote:
This has been brought up every (election) year since the inception of electronic voting machines. Widespread fraud is yet to be conclusively proven despite many investigations.
BluePanther sufficiently destroyed the credibility of the few conspiracy websites linked. BluePanther 1 Crappy links 0. It has been proven that electronic voting fraud is (1) easy (2) not traceable. Voting machines don't use encrypted data and the software they use is publicly available. Electronic voting machines used extensively in previous elections have been recalled before for being extremely vulnerable. But you're right it's never been "proven" on a widespread scale.
This thread alleges a specific phenomenon--larger precincts vote increasingly for Romney. In his "proof", he shows the State of Wisconsin tally, which mimics the trends in the other states. I have verified and PROVEN that fraud does not occur in our state on a widespread basis (we use paper ballots with only machine tabulation). If this trend noticed by the authors is real in Wisconsin, it is actually likely real in a number of other states as well.
This entire "academic paper" attempts to tie in this phenomenon to fraud when in reality it is likely something incredibly simple--urban republicans like Romney more than rural republicans. This isn't a hard concept, and has a lot more validity than some obviously biased internet report that has absolutely no link whatsoever from its data to its conclusion.
|
I'd be more worried about this type of alleged corruption.
|
What do you expect when your source is a website called "themoneyparty.org"?
|
how is there a fraud?? Both get paid by the same people.
|
.coms and .orgs do not an accusation make.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm sure it's not true. But if tomorrow the lid was blown off and we come to find it's rigged, that wouldn't really surprise me. Some pretty seedy shit goes down in the US government.
|
On October 31 2012 10:17 BluePanther wrote:WHY THIS IS FALSE (with proof)I posted this in the other thread, but I'll copy it over here since you couldn't keep this contained in the relevant thread: Please remember that I do volunteer election work (legal) on partisan elections for some Republicans in the State of Wisconsin, which was one of the states accused of cheating in that report. Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:36 Lmui wrote:
Secondary confirmation of the statistical anomaly I posted earlier. It did seem pretty impossible at the time and some people, BluePanther especially tried to refute it but didn't have a concrete reason. This article elaborates further and suggests that it has occured starting only in 2008, only for republican candidates and is only ever in favour of republican candidates.
You're asking me to disprove something that didn't happen. It is hard to do that. I also believe when you throw around these kinds of accusations, it's YOUR job to PROVE that it happened. And correlations are not PROOF. Like I said, the author of that study noted that in Wisconsin, we've had that same trend. But I pointed out that we use paper ballots, and that the machines only count. When there is a recount, they count the paper ballots. Just recently we had a huge election scandal. A Democrat won the election for a spot on our Supreme Court. A clerk in a large (and very Republican) Milwaukee suburb failed to submit a large group of votes until the day after the election which swung the results in favor of the Republican candidate for Supreme Court. Obviously, hell was raised and a recount commenced to verify the results. See: http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/latest-report-to-gab-shows-waukesha-county-recount-628-completedhttp://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/122443704.htmlThey used a partial hand recount in this Supreme Court election (which was hugely partisan) where the Republican won by a miniscule amount. He still won after the recount. About 1/3 of the counties in the state were required to recount the ballots BY HAND. There was no suggestion of wildly varying vote totals nearing the 10% your conspiracy theorist alleges. The mistakes were well within reasonable changes to the total, and nobody accused anyone of stealing the election. Here are the historical counts as this whole debacle unfolded so you can see these changes from a machine count to a hand count: http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/results/2011/springYou are chasing a ghost. Our machines are not rigged. And this is proof (at least in a single example). Where is YOUR proof?
I've tried to phrase the title as neutrally as possible. Wisconsin is one of the states that had the lowest variation, it's entirely possible for it to be up to statistical error there. Here's a reddit link to a pure stats standpoint. The numbers in the two pdfs I posted are correct, the only thing to discuss is whether or not they agree or warrant an investigation and whether or not the conclusions within the pdfs are correct.
http://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/comments/123pt7/would_rstatistics_care_to_critique_the/
researching it a bit more
/r/statistics point of view. I highly recommend that you read through it. It has points both for and against the possibility of fraud. The top comments say that it is definitely anomalous but without further information on correlations between precinct size and urban/rurality among other things, it's difficult to say for certain.
Rather interesting link in there as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Connell
I think that it does warrant investigating, at the very least to disprove the paper.
Edit::
I barely got any reaction in the general election thread. Half a dozen posts from one person was all I got. It has been frontpaged on reddit a few times which is why it's so interesting to me.
|
On October 31 2012 11:20 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:09 Probe1 wrote:
This has been brought up every (election) year since the inception of electronic voting machines. Widespread fraud is yet to be conclusively proven despite many investigations.
BluePanther sufficiently destroyed the credibility of the few conspiracy websites linked. BluePanther 1 Crappy links 0. It has been proven that electronic voting fraud is (1) easy (2) not traceable. Voting machines don't use encrypted data and the software they use is publicly available. Electronic voting machines used extensively in previous elections have been recalled before for being extremely vulnerable. But you're right it's never been "proven" on a widespread scale.
Dude I don't know how this isn't like, on Reuters! Unless it's not "real".
Seriously, don't believe every sensationalist muck of a website you see. You've been had.
|
On October 31 2012 11:47 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:17 BluePanther wrote:WHY THIS IS FALSE (with proof)I posted this in the other thread, but I'll copy it over here since you couldn't keep this contained in the relevant thread: Please remember that I do volunteer election work (legal) on partisan elections for some Republicans in the State of Wisconsin, which was one of the states accused of cheating in that report. On October 31 2012 08:36 Lmui wrote:
Secondary confirmation of the statistical anomaly I posted earlier. It did seem pretty impossible at the time and some people, BluePanther especially tried to refute it but didn't have a concrete reason. This article elaborates further and suggests that it has occured starting only in 2008, only for republican candidates and is only ever in favour of republican candidates.
You're asking me to disprove something that didn't happen. It is hard to do that. I also believe when you throw around these kinds of accusations, it's YOUR job to PROVE that it happened. And correlations are not PROOF. Like I said, the author of that study noted that in Wisconsin, we've had that same trend. But I pointed out that we use paper ballots, and that the machines only count. When there is a recount, they count the paper ballots. Just recently we had a huge election scandal. A Democrat won the election for a spot on our Supreme Court. A clerk in a large (and very Republican) Milwaukee suburb failed to submit a large group of votes until the day after the election which swung the results in favor of the Republican candidate for Supreme Court. Obviously, hell was raised and a recount commenced to verify the results. See: http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/latest-report-to-gab-shows-waukesha-county-recount-628-completedhttp://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/122443704.htmlThey used a partial hand recount in this Supreme Court election (which was hugely partisan) where the Republican won by a miniscule amount. He still won after the recount. About 1/3 of the counties in the state were required to recount the ballots BY HAND. There was no suggestion of wildly varying vote totals nearing the 10% your conspiracy theorist alleges. The mistakes were well within reasonable changes to the total, and nobody accused anyone of stealing the election. Here are the historical counts as this whole debacle unfolded so you can see these changes from a machine count to a hand count: http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/results/2011/springYou are chasing a ghost. Our machines are not rigged. And this is proof (at least in a single example). Where is YOUR proof? I've tried to phrase the title as neutrally as possible. Wisconsin is one of the states that had the lowest variation, it's entirely possible for it to be up to statistical error there. Here's a reddit link to a pure stats standpoint. The numbers in the two pdfs I posted are correct, the only thing to discuss is whether or not they agree or warrant an investigation and whether or not the conclusions within the pdfs are correct. http://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/comments/123pt7/would_rstatistics_care_to_critique_the/researching it a bit more /r/statistics point of view. I highly recommend that you read through it. It has points both for and against the possibility of fraud. The top comments say that it is definitely anomalous but without further information on correlations between precinct size and urban/rurality among other things, it's difficult to say for certain. Rather interesting link in there as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_ConnellI think that it does warrant investigating, at the very least to disprove the paper.
But if the trend exists in Wisconsin legitimately, then how can you dismiss it in other states?
My point is that there is absolutely no connection between this data and vote stuffing. It's just a hypothesis forwarded by the author of that information. It is a hypothesis that I've basically debunked, yet you still cling to it. If Wisconsin has this trend without fraud, then you must be forced to accept that something other than fraud is causing this. If something other than fraud is causing this, you cannot attribute the anomaly to fraud.
|
On October 31 2012 10:17 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? I think Americans stopped caring what their rulers did long ago.
Sounds like you've stopped going to school long ago. Not only is everything he presents completely and utterly circumstancial and correlational (if even correlation statistically exists there, they don't say), there are so many third variables in politics that could change the distribution of voters. What about gerrymandering? What about the massive economical crisis we've been having for the past 5 years? These things influence distributions and I can't honestly say I'm going to believe some bum that thinks he knows how to use excel. If his data was actually that definitive then this would get a considerable amount of media attention. That alone would indicate to me that its just more liberal conspiracy and propaganda (conservatives as well) that consistently appears when elections are tight.
Edit: I forgot to say that I have DEFINITIVE PROOF that machines aren't rigged! Check this PROOF out:
PROOF HERE!
PROOF 2 HERE!!
EVEN MORE PROOF!!
Alright I'm done making my sarcastic point.
|
The implications of such massive fraud are staggering, and you're telling me the entire Democratic machine is either incapable or unwilling to prove this conspiracy to be true (thus destroying the Republican party for a long while)? This fraud seems unlikely.
|
On October 31 2012 11:47 Lmui wrote:
I barely got any reaction in the general election thread. Half a dozen posts from one person was all I got. It has been frontpaged on reddit a few times which is why it's so interesting to me.
Reddit is mostly teenagers who have no clue how the real world works. They are also extremely liberal and are dying for any bit they can dig up on those sleazy rich republicans who scam elections. Of course a sensationalist conclusion backed by a report that has an appearance of legitimacy would be well received by them.
But then again these are the same tards who championed KONY 2012.
|
On October 31 2012 11:48 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:20 Sinensis wrote:On October 31 2012 11:09 Probe1 wrote:
This has been brought up every (election) year since the inception of electronic voting machines. Widespread fraud is yet to be conclusively proven despite many investigations.
BluePanther sufficiently destroyed the credibility of the few conspiracy websites linked. BluePanther 1 Crappy links 0. It has been proven that electronic voting fraud is (1) easy (2) not traceable. Voting machines don't use encrypted data and the software they use is publicly available. Electronic voting machines used extensively in previous elections have been recalled before for being extremely vulnerable. But you're right it's never been "proven" on a widespread scale. Dude I don't know how this isn't like, on Reuters! Unless it's not "real". Seriously, don't believe every sensationalist muck of a website you see. You've been had.
What do you mean I've been had? Who's got me? All I said was that electronic voting fraud is easy and no one but the person committing the fraud would ever know it went down. Most of these voting machines even have convenient flash memory slots. The security is a joke.
|
Look, maybe you should research something on your own instead of letting others (in this case reddit) do it for you before plopping a whopper on us.
|
Oh more anti republicanism coming from reddit and team liquid? SHOCKING! There is no bases for this and like the one poster said earlier, the liberal media would be on this like flies on shit.
|
On October 31 2012 11:55 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:47 Lmui wrote:
I barely got any reaction in the general election thread. Half a dozen posts from one person was all I got. It has been frontpaged on reddit a few times which is why it's so interesting to me. Reddit is mostly teenagers who have no clue how the real world works. They are also extremely liberal and are dying for any bit they can dig up on those sleazy rich republicans who scam elections. Of course a sensationalist conclusion backed by a report that has an appearance of legitimacy would be well received by them. But then again these are the same tards who championed KONY 2012.
The areas on TL I visit are the general election thread and league of legends. Pretty much the same on reddit (frontpage + /r/leagueoflegends) Although reddit I'd admit isn't altogether reliable, reading the first hundred comments and the most controversial comments gives a good idea of what the facts behind something is. For example, top comments in the /r/politics is generally republican bashing/obama praising but if you go down a bit (sometimes a lot) you find gems for the other side as well. That's how I found the /r/statistics link that gave other rationale behind the trend. I have taken the liberty of linking your rebuttal at the top of the OP.
|
this thing reminds me of an old simpsons video (2008)
+ Show Spoiler +
do you guys really use vendi.. err voting machinges like that? (i googled "USA presidential election voting machine")
that doesn't sound really safe, also sounds kinda unnecessary, really...
here, there were lots of concerns about electronic data report, which can be double checked tho, and such a machine would raise a shitstorm
Why have they been adopted in the first place? Economic reasons?
|
On October 31 2012 11:58 Probe1 wrote:
Look, maybe you should research something on your own instead of letting others (in this case reddit) do it for you before plopping a whopper on us.
I've never been to reddit. All the research I've done on voting machines has been school related.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
