PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID

"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.

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.

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.

"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?

"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

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?

Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 9/15/2004 7:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: veY1d.299700$Oi.64408@fed1read04


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 9/14/2004 9:39 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04


"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
Democratic
liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
into
higher
education.
They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.

So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
old
man?

Because the supreme court elected him,

Remember the other guy had more people vote for him

But Bush won the Electoral College.

Have you noticed All the Florida recounts done since 2000 show Bush
winning?

If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more
interested
in the next.

So if bush wins the popular vote and loses the electoral you'll be happy???



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Did you wear wings

"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?

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?.

"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.