If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ... You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget that the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never actually counted. Because it's meaningless. But the popular vote by state is counted and all one has to do is add the individual state counts. The point, for the purpose of this discussion, is that GHWB did receive a majority of the national popular vote. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Jack:
Do you consider 6%-7% to be "small?" I don't. Read the reports. You get 3%~4% mechanical undercount (residual vote), and an additional 3% tossed ballots. This is above and beyond mechanical error; this is above and beyond any fraud. Steve Swartz "Jack G" wrote in message news:LAl2d.8436$5t4.5488@trnddc01... You may consider this a minor point - but general election ballots almost always have more than just the Presidential issue - and even thought the Presidential race may have been determined, the other issues require a vote count to be determined. Machine and computerized voting count all of the issues on a ballot. The number of uncounted ballots is therefore quite small in most states. Jack G. "Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ... You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget that the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never actually counted. The FEC doesn't even have standards or a process for counting the "popular vote." This is in addition to the margins of errors for balloting. Ballots are not counted- that's right, thrown away- if the tally from those ballots won't affect the electoral votes in play. This undercount (generally assumed to be proportianally representative of the counted ballots; a major flaw in the theory ref absentee ballots which are generally the ones tossed) is in addition to the undercount referred to in the literature as "residual ballots" which are cast, but unscored, votes. Overall what most people (yourselves included) refer to as the "Popular Vote" [sic] is only a very rough, and not even representative, estimate of only those votes actually tallied- which are themselves subject to error. There is no such thing as the "national popular vote" except in a theoretical sense. Being a polisci guy Ed Rasimus knows more about this than I do, but for starters check out a good summary report National Buerea of Standards report 500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying" compiled by Roy G. Saltman http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158 and then track back to the CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC standards for vote tally accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are not yet in force) and machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical error issues involved at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a good "Apologia" from the government side. I found it particularly hilarious to read about how "these results should be treated carefully lest the public lose confidence in their government!" Yeah, right. Steve Swartz Steve Swartz "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Raoul" wrote in message ... Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988? The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates. Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have gone to Nixon, too. But there was no "third party" candidate in 1988. Bush won 53.4% of the national popular vote. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Steve:
Read the reports. There is at least a 3%-4% "residual vote" undercount (mechanical undercount), and a ~3% purposeful undercount. This, of course, is above and beyond mechanical scoring error, and above and beyond any fraud. See National Bureau of Standards report 500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying" compiled by Roy G. Saltman http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158 and then track back to the CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC standards for vote tally accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are not yet in force) and machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical error issues involved at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a good "Apologia" from the government side. Yeah, "actual studies" have been done. And yeah, we don't try very hard to to count the "popular vote by state" [sic]- whatever that means. We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but nothing approaching any type of recognized official count. Surprised? Check it out. Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have provided the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read them, and then let's go at it chapter and verse. The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet all of a sudden . . . Steve Swartz "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ... You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget that the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never actually counted. Because it's meaningless. But the popular vote by state is counted and all one has to do is add the individual state counts. The point, for the purpose of this discussion, is that GHWB did receive a majority of the national popular vote. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ... Steve: Read the reports. For what purpose? There is at least a 3%-4% "residual vote" undercount (mechanical undercount), and a ~3% purposeful undercount. So what's your point? This, of course, is above and beyond mechanical scoring error, and above and beyond any fraud. See National Bureau of Standards report 500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying" compiled by Roy G. Saltman http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158 and then track back to the CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC standards for vote tally accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are not yet in force) and machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical error issues involved at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a good "Apologia" from the government side. See them for what? Yeah, "actual studies" have been done. And yeah, we don't try very hard to to count the "popular vote by state" [sic]- whatever that means. The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral votes are cast. We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but nothing approaching any type of recognized official count. Surprised? No. Should I be? Check it out. Check what out? Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have provided the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read them, and then let's go at it chapter and verse. What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you? The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet all of a sudden . . . Took you up on what? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... Thanks for the list. You won't hear much about this factoid on the mainstream media, however, given that the last president to get a popular majority was Ronald Reagan--twice. Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988? Since he isn't on the 'minority president' list I guess he did, provided the list is accurate. -- FF |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: "Steven P. McNicoll" Date: 9/16/2004 5:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: et "Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you How do you know that? So you are now claiming to be an Air Cadet graduate who went into combat as aircrew? |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID From: "Steven P. McNicoll" Date: 9/16/2004 5:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: et "Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you How do you know that? So you are now claiming to be an Air Cadet graduate who went into combat as aircrew? No. How did you make that leap? |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: "Steven P. McNicoll" Date: 9/17/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: . net "Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID From: "Steven P. McNicoll" Date: 9/16/2004 5:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: et "Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you How do you know that? So you are now claiming to be an Air Cadet graduate who went into combat as aircrew? No. How did you make that leap? Then is it fair to say you were neither an Air Cadet nor aircrew. Is that right?. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID From: "Steven P. McNicoll" Date: 9/17/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: . net "Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID From: "Steven P. McNicoll" Date: 9/16/2004 5:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: et "Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you How do you know that? So you are now claiming to be an Air Cadet graduate who went into combat as aircrew? No. How did you make that leap? Then is it fair to say you were neither an Air Cadet nor aircrew. Is that right?. Yup. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________-+__ ihuvpe | RobertR237 | Home Built | 84 | November 26th 04 05:19 PM |
(NEOCONS) GOING BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM | MORRIS434 | Military Aviation | 0 | April 23rd 04 02:29 PM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 1 | April 9th 04 11:25 PM |
No End to War | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | March 26th 04 04:20 AM |
De Borchgrave: WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, and Neocons | MORRIS434 | Military Aviation | 0 | February 12th 04 08:41 PM |