Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election timeline/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

While anyone can edit this page, User:Raul654 and User:Fuzheado have volunteered to oversee any problems with it. Check IRC channel #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net

During the election, template:In the News will have a link to this page, where all the election information will be put as it comes in. This page, then, will be used to document the election as it happens on election night. →Raul654 05:09, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

Image overlaps table at resolution 800x600

In the Electoral college section, the image overlaps the table at resolution 800x600. Any ideas? --Hemanshu 07:46, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

As you know, I fooled with it somewhat, so that it now works on either resolution, but it probably doesn't look as good on 1024x768. There may be a better solution. - Vague Rant 08:14, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

What's the image for?

Should the image appear above the results as it currently is? Is the image going to be updated with results throughout the evening or is it just a reference shot? I think the results table should be as close to the top as possible. Feel free to fix it. Jewbacca 11:13, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice by the end of the whole thing to have a map filled in correctly. Anyone want to take it and trace in Adobe Illustrator? Fuzheado | Talk 11:14, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

At the end this page probably will not exist (and will be in 2004 U.S. Presidential election or whatever the title is), but at the least I think a non-informative image shouldn't be so prominent (above the results) at least during Election Day. Jewbacca 11:17, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

It's plenty informative for those outside the U.S. - Vague Rant 11:19, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

I suppose I mean which is more important for today? The results or the image? the results. Jewbacca 11:35, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Jewbacca. Rhobite 12:16, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Can we put the image next to the TOC? Or get a horizontal TOC, or NoTOC? — Jeandré, 2004-11-02t20:51z

Title of this page

Shouldn't it be 2004 US election in progress? That is what we're talking about, but it's hardly the only country having an election this year. --Michael Snow 17:49, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

Agreed List of election results already shows many countries have had elections so far this year and no doubt many others have been missed. If this page does go live then put US or USA in there somewhere. - SimonLyall 19:47, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

In the interests of multinational cooperation among our editors preserving my sanity, I've moved the page :) →Raul654 20:37, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article have an even better title. I can't come up with a suggestion I like, but even Progress of US election, 2004 is better and says more.

Also note that we have a category - Category:U.S. presidential election, 2004. Is it complete? Is it adequately subcategorised (it has no subcats so far) and how can we use it best? ✏ Sverdrup 13:52, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

To all appearances this page is entirely about the presidential election. It should, therefore, have "Presidential" in its title! (Alternatively, of course, the page could go on to give senate and house races — but I suspect it would be easier to spin those out to their own pages.) Doops 06:02, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Although there are several different gubernatorial, Senate, and House races at least start a Congess page for now, even though those results won't be available until late night. I don't recommend placing them on this page since it would make the page longer than necessary. I volunteer myself to man the Senate race page. -Valentino 14:43, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

What kind of a title is "2004 U.S. election in progress" ?? Please make it 2004 U.S. election results or something. Jay 12:29, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions

If you think there's something that we should do or discuss before the election, please note it below.

What about if results from various news sources are disputed? What would be the policy in effect from the 'directors'? (e.g. XXX News announces Kerry win in XX state but another agency YYY News announces Bush win)

News Feeds to watch

• AP newswire
  • Newsday [1]
  • Washington Post [2]
• Reuters RSS feeds [3]
  • US News [4]
  • Politcs [5]

State sections.

To reduce edit conflicts, how about allowing us to edit just the state's section, like 213.224.83.70's edit (but with a NoTOC)? — Jeandré, 2004-11-02t13:30z

Percentages.

Is there a reason why the "Popular Vote %"s are still at 0.00 despite Dixville Notch and Hart's Location's votes? — Jeandré, 2004-11-02t13:30z

We don't know how many people are going to vote so we can't know the percentage yet. Actually I guess we could do it based on how many have voted so far but I think we are going to wait until the polls close. NeoJustin 14:49, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader is running as an independent not as part of the Reform Party. He does have their support. It says Reform Party in the third party totals next to his name. NeoJustin 15:02, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

In delaware, he ran as part of the independent party of delaware.

Results in tiny US cities

How did Dixville Notch and Hart's Location vote in 2000? Do these results constitute an early swing? Adam 07:16, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

According to Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, the 2000 vote was:

• George W. Bush - 21
• Albert A. Gore Jr. - 5
• Ralph Nader - 1 →Raul654 07:20, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

As far as being an early swing - New Hampshire has always been a conservative abberation in what is otherwise the very liberal region of New England. →Raul654 07:20, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

That isn't the point. The point is that Gore got 18.5% of the vote in Dixville Notch in 2000 while Kerry has got 26.9%, a swing of 8.4%. If Kerry does 8.4% better than Gore across the country he will win in a canter. Therefore I call the election for Kerry. How's that for bold extrapolation? Adam 07:29, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

While I would applaud that result, the steps you took to get there would make my statistics professors cry ;) →Raul654 07:32, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

For my extrapolation to be unsound your professor would have show how the good folks of Dixville Notch differ from the rest of the country. Adam 07:38, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no, he wouldn't: 26 voters is simply not a large enough sample from which to extrapolate with any confidence. (I like how Hart's Location has a tie, though — if the election is still undecided a week from now, that will seem wonderfully prescient.) Doops 08:49, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Essentially, a 8% "swing" is well within the probable statistical jitter for such a small sample (26 people). This means that if you took samples 26 people at random in the general population of voters inside a state that votes 50/50 or 75/25, you are very likely to see such "swings" between those samples of 26 people. In fact, there is about 50% chance that on a sample of that size and a 75/25 result you should see a "swing" of this magnitude or more, if I do the math correctly. David.Monniaux 15:46, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why we report it as a tie; CNN says 16-14. We're talking about a 3% shift here, which extrapolated to the rest of the country would equal about 100 electoral votes. VeryVerily 10:55, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Was there a recount perchance? Perhaps a ballot had a hanging chad? VeryVerily 10:57, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

More seriously, all the media I am seeing suggests a late shift to Kerry. It is also being pointed out that in 2000 all the polls in the final week under-predicted Gore's vote. If that is the case again (and there are good arguments for why polls undercount Democrats), then Kerry will win. Also it should be pointed out that the only other pair of father-son Presidents, John Adams and John Q Adams, were both defeated when seeking re-election, as was Benjamin Harrison, grandson of W H Harrison. I think the voters of Dixville Notch are presaging the overall result. Adam 08:58, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Adam and everyone, stop. This is silliness. It's obvious we've all got nervous energy waiting to be unleashed when the onslaught of results come pouring in. So let's concentrate on putting in "big picture" numbers and not piddly little town votes. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 11:00, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Ummm... results posted for New Hampshire are incorrect in the table. Do the math... Kerry has 21 votes, not 22.

Sign up sheet

These are people who think they'll be able to help before/during/after the election to keep the information here up to date and orderly:

• Fuzheado | Talk
• Academic Challenger 05:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) (after)
• Yes, I will help. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 16:15, 2 November 2004 (UTC) (during/after)

Wikify

Neither the state names nor the third-party candidate names are linked to their respective articles. Should we do that? I suppose it could be confusing for someone to click on Alaska thinking they are going to get more info on the election in Alaska rather than on just Alaska itself. func(talk) 17:34, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Cell Alignment

Could the popular votes be right-aligned, so that the figures line up numerically? Admittedly, they won't exactly line up without a monospaced font, but I think it is easier to immediately grasp tabulated numbers that are right-aligned. func(talk) 18:27, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

idea to prevent edit conflicts in the software

wouldn't it be a better idea to split the table on this page into subpages to avoid edit conflits in the software when everything breaks loose? oscar 15:28, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if that might make it harder to maintain the page? If subpages are created, they ought to have real titles, not actually be subpages since that would violate the do not use subpages rule. Angela. 16:11, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

i am sorry that i expressed it in the wrong terms! what i mean is: just like this page, with == signs, in order to make it possible te edit partial pages (or whatever they are called). that will prevent many edit-conflicts in the software i mean. oscar 17:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh - you mean sections. Yes, I see no problem with that since it will decrease edit conflicts. Angela. 17:43, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

I've done this now. It doesn't look great if you have numbered section headings in your preferences, but hopefully it will make it easier to edit. Angela. 19:01, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Contents of this page

Much of the content of this page can be copied from our other articles. I would like to see an election-in-progress map. →Raul654 05:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

http://electoral-vote.com/ Wizzy 07:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

The table of contents can't be permanently hidden, even with a visit to misc prefs. Is it really necessary, or can we get rid of it? It makes the page very long. Alternatively, can it be made so it flows horizontally instead of vertically? Tempted to just remove it outright but I wanted to see discussion on that first. dpk 19:07, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

I'd be interested in how this article is going to look afterwards. Since (hopefully) 90% of the action is going to take place only over an evening and few people will use wikipedia as main source of information it needs to be pitched to people reading afterwards. Perhaps a Timeline format might be best. Possibly with 5 or 10 minute periods for the main part of the day. People could record what happened for 10 minutes, edit that period and put everything in and then later it can be tidied up. I'd also suggest people record/tivo the main networks broadcasts (timestamped if possible). SimonLyall 00:55, 22 September 2004 (UTC)

Possible defacement

Under Missouri, the table claims 1000 Bush votes and no opposing votes. I suspect that this is incorrect. It seems to have been introduced at the same time as some other defacement. However, I don't know for sure that it's wrong... One-dimensional Tangent 21:22, 2 November 2004 (UTC) (May the morons leave us alone)

Ok, someone's already fixed it. Thanks. One-dimensional Tangent 21:27, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

POV Vandalism

Someone superimposed a Kerry message on the results map at the bottom. I temporarily removed it until someone can get the real one back up. --Aniboy2000 22:26, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. 68.184.8.18 23:06, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I just noticed that.. I've been too busy reverting vandalism that I didn't even notice it. I guess the npov tag can be removed now. CryptoDerk 23:07, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

If you want to re-add the map, I've reuploaded it at: Image:2004-US-Electoral-College.jpg and protected it... Evercat 23:17, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

results table of contents

The table of contents at the head of the results section is pointless and annoying: it's a long vertical list indexing....a long vertical list. I know viewers can suppress it if they want to; but I suggest that, if the software makes it possible, we either make it suppressed by default or (still better) keep it but make it a horizontal box which can display all the states succinctly (which is the point of a TOC). Right now it's just tautological and annoying. Doops 23:32, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

What belongs here

CONGRESS? SENATE? GOVERNORSHIPS? Should we include these races on this page too? Someone added the Colorado ballot measure so i dont see why not...

No. THe Colorado initiative has a direct effect on the Presidental election; those others do not. →Raul654 21:39, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

You're right, this page should only include presidential stuff...but on the other hand it should say so! I think the title should include the word "presidential"; and there should be prominent links at the top of the page to senate, house, gubernatorial, etc. results. It's not fair to assume that "election" means "presidential election." Doops 23:29, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

OK, instead of just complaining I've taken action and written an introductory ¶. (I still think the page could stand to be renamed; but the situation's a lot clearer now, if I do say so myself.) Doops 23:39, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Someone superimposed a Kerry message on the results map at the bottom. I temporarily removed it until someone can get the real one back up. Aniboy2000

Warning against vandalism

Can we possibly add a warning to the top of the page saying tha Vandalism will not be tolerated?

Obviously we can't just lock the page ;-) Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Hazzamon (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Popular Votes

Why are percentages being placed in the areas where the number of votes should be? Mike H 00:51, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Votes

Why are exit polls being entered as results for some states, whilst the projected results in the states that have reported and the rolling national total are not included? Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.237.165 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Report as of 7:40 ET

This is my first attempt at adding to the Wikipedia so appologies if I am doing it wrong. And feel free to edit out whatever does not belong (like these first two sentances?).

I heard an interesting method of predicting the election outcome early in the night. This political pundit (I forget his name) suggested comparing 2004 poll results from eastern states to the 2000 results from those states and if there is a consistent and significant difference across multiple states using that trend to predict the election.

It is way to early for this but for the fun of it I am going to post initial results of this method and keep it up for at least a little bit while I am hear at work. If anyone else wants to continue it after I leave feel free.

Results from www.yahoo.com as of 7:55pm ET.

    IN, after 17% precints reported, Bush=61,Kerry=38.  This is 4% better for Bush then in 2000 (Final IN Bush 57, Gore 41, soure rasmussen reports)
    KY, after 52% precints reported, Bush=57, Kerry=42.  This is the same result for Bush as the 2000 result (Final KY Bush=57, Gore=41).

Results from yahoo as of 8:20pm ET. (I'm only going to mention Bush for simplicity.)

    IN, after 26% precincts reported, Bush=60, 3% increase over 2000
    KY, after 62% precincts, Bush=57, (no change from 2000)
    VT, with 3% precints, Bush=38% (3% decrease from his 2000 result of 41%)  (Soure for 2000 election results is Rasmussen reports)
    GA, with 3% precints, Bush=69, an 11% increase over 2000 result of 55)

Signed Clay1039 (I Just registered, does it put my signature in here automatically?) Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.24.18 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Conflicting projections

All three networks have conflicting projections, so I'm going to abstain from editing the article any further. It seems that CBS seems to be more liberal in calling states (108 for Bush, called "too close to call" states) while NBC (81 for Bush) is the most conservative. I'm viewing NBC, so I'm probably not the best person to edit. Mike H 01:29, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Need a director

Fuzheado has suggested that we need a 'director' for this page, and I'm inclined to agree. I'll do it if no one else wants it, but I'd rather someone else did. →Raul654 05:06, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

The ideal 'director' would probably be located in the Eastern time zone, so that they are free earlier in the evening (for example, I will still be at work when states start closing their polls). Or maybe we should think about a series of directors in shifts. The results may not take all night and beyond to sort through like in 2000, but then again they might. --Michael Snow 17:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calling states

We should have some policy about calling states. I had originally suggested, in an email to the mailing list, that we don't call states until 24 hours after the election. While this might be a bit much, I *do* think we need a policy of not parroting the latest jabber on the different networks. In light of that, maybe we should wait until one of the big news servies (AP or Reuters) calls states before we do. →Raul654 05:03, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable... though surely, untill the offical results come in, we should only be saying "such-and-such-a-state: Reuters has called this sate for such-and-such"? Iain 13:05, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, we do not call states ourselves, and we should make a better effort than usual to cite sources for our information. For Template:In the news itself, I would consider summary statements such as "Preliminary results indicate..." acceptable. --Michael Snow 17:46, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

No no, we won't be editing In the News at all. We'll have a single, static link to 2004 US election in progress and do all our editing here. →Raul654 04:30, 29 September 2004 (UTC)

I can guarantee you 95% that Louisiana, my state, will go to Bush. I could guarantee you that months ago. Unless something strange happens to voter turnout, it's safe to call the state as "probably Bush". A lot of states can do this. Can we just call some of the obvious ones as "probably"? --Geoffrey 17:15, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Think we need to not call states until all votes are counted. If Ohio is all it takes to swing the election either way, we can't call this election for almost 2 weeks, that's how long before every vote can be counted, in that state, if my understanding is correct. Pedant 15:26, 3 November 2004(UTC)

Vandalism

Because I suspect election-related vandalism will be running rampant that day, I suggest we monitor In the News carefully, and (if need be) protect it for the night. →Raul654 05:03, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

I actually think that vanadalism on the election page itsself might be a biggr issue. Is there any way around it? Would it be possible to only let a few people edit that page this day? I know it's not according to the wiki thought, but vandalism might be a bit of a big risk. --24.132.32.139 15:56, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

--24.132.32.139 == me, forgetting to log in --Kasperl 17:25, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Already happening: "What are you doing there sitting in front of your computer and browsing Wikipedia? For Chrissakes, get up, go outside, and VOTE! Yes, VOTE! Because, if the shrub gets his way, maybe we won't have an internet 4 years from now! Vote freedom, Vote Kerry!" Not sure how to get rid of it, a quick perusal of the source doesn't seem to display it anywhere. Can anybody help with that? Impi 21:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed. Impi 21:20, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Can we please unprotect this page? Certainly there are enough interested users to repair w/ vandalism. IMHO, there's no point in having an "election in progress" page if the page is just going to be protected from edits tonight. 65.77.101.63 01:49, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Understanding the American Electoral Process

Perhaps this page should be linked to one explaining the American electoral process because I know for a fact that many people from foreign countries are not exactly familiar with how the system works, and the significance of certain states and such...

Just a thought...

Good idea. I've added a link to U.S. Electoral College in the intro. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:54, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

More clarifications for other nationalities

In addition to explaining how the process works (which has already been stated using the link to U.S. Electoral College Perhaps there should be a mimi-manual at the bottom of the page indicating the meaning of colours and symbolism, and a very general over view of what has undertaken and what it all means and what is to come.

My 2 cents.. Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.158.98 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Wrong Socialist Workers Party (USA) VP candidate

It's definitely not James Harris as shown. See [6], Socialist Workers Party (USA), and your own ballot. A-giau 02:17, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

OK, Harris is an "alternate/surrogate", not VP candidate -- interesting. A-giau 02:25, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Going on?

What's going on here? This page should not be protected, no matter how much vandalism it gets. It requires up-to-the-minute reporting as the story unfolds, not just from the handful of active admins. And it's protected on a vandalized version as of now - announcing Bush 260 and Kerry 278 as the outcome. It's also not reporting on states which have been called. VeryVerily 00:41, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and have unprotected it. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:46, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's been reprotected. VeryVerily 02:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be OK now. Thank you for unprotecting. 65.77.101.63 02:42, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

UNPROTECT THIS PAGE

This is WIKIPEDIA! Vandalism will be repaired in miliseconds. Please, unprotect this page, for great justice!

I second the motion. I didn't even see any of the vandalism the many times I loaded the page, only the fixes in the history. - xsarpedonx

Everything seems to be unprotected now. 65.77.101.63 02:43, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Arkansas

Arkansas should be coloured red, not blue. Shorne 03:17, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Florida

Flordia has been listed for Bush but this seems premature as according to the news, the polls there are still open as people who began queing before 7pm are allowed to vote.== Florida == 94% precinct turnout now, with kerry at 47% it is matehmatically impossible for him to win Florida. Therefore florida goes to bush. Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.237.165 (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Unprecedented?

The sheer number of edits this article is getting is simply staggering. It's a good thing the MediaWiki software was updated to minimize edit conflicts in time. I suspect there is no precedent for this on Wikipedia. VeryVerily 02:44, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Record-breaking, sure, but not fully unprecedented. Ronald Reagan had a reduced but comparable level of activity shortly after his death. That's the only example I can think of offhand. Some of the articles on this year's hurricanes have been fairly crazy, but not nearly to this level. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:41, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

colors

Not all of us are American and know what the colors are supposed to symbolise. Please put some indication of what color means what on the page. Thanks Dysprosia 02:11, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Done - Dmeranda 04:12, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Table borders

Why does my border="0" edit keep getting reverted? the ugly solid black borders are completely unnecessary; the spacing and color fill of the table cells provide very adequate cell organization. And without the borders, the table looks far more aesthetic and cleaner. ✈ James C. 06:52, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Third-party candidates

Some states didn't allow you to vote for third-party candidates for President. I know this because I happen to live in one of them, which unfortunately I hadn't found out until I was already at the polls. The only two names on the ballot for President were Bush and Kerry, and voters were not allowed to write in the name of any other candidate. I think states that did not allow third-party votes should have that noted here. - Furrykef 09:06, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Not reporting exit polls

There's an agreement, or law, or something in which the broadcast and cable networks - according to [www.slate.com Slate] it's everyone who receives the exit poll data - that they won't reveal exit poll results until some late time at night. The complaint has always been that early reporting of exit polls, and especially actual projections of the winner of the election based on some eastern swing states, suppresses voter turnout in the western states.

So, IIRC, after one of the Reagan elections, everybody agreed not to post this stuff, though Slate is leaking it as soon as it's leaked to them.

This article would be a good place to mention this law or agreement or whatever it is, if anybody knows about the "blood oath" and its history. Tempshill 23:37, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

It's not a law, it's an agreement among those who pay for the exit polling, namely broadcast and cable networks. Basically, because they pay for it, they want to exploit it, and they agree not to release it (especially to the campaigns) until a certain embargo time. Actually, they'd be better off not reporting it, because it's error-ridden and lead to a lot of embarassing mistakes when used to "predict" election results rather than to explain election results, which is their stated purpose. The agreement is certainly not a very effective "blood oath": the campaigns always obtain the information, and it's also usually broadly hinted at in every-way-but-reciting-the-figures in telecasts by those subject to the agreement. I expect it will be controversial in the aftermath of the election if it leads to any premature "calls" of states that turn out to be wrong. The stuff that was really controversial, which I think you're remembering from Reagan, was networks "calling" states before polling had closed in that state, which I think the networks have actually stopped. - Nunh-huh 02:11, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

The latter is what I was thinking of, thanks. Tempshill 18:28, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Lesson for future generations of Wikipedia editors who maintain an article like this during an election

It seemed to me the spew of updates might have historical interest — it would have been interesting to request that every entry have been timestamped to illustrate a sequence of events. (Timestamps could be reconstructed for this page now, if somebody wanted to perform a fairly tedious, thankless task.) Tempshill 18:28, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

This is a good idea. We could reconstruct the page to transform the events section into a timeline section, with timestamps. Zen Master 20:31, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Final EV tally

The final EV tally will no doubt be Bush 289 286 (oops typo), Kerry 252. Time to update the page. NM, IA and OH = BUSH 216.153.214.94 17:29, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I bet you a million dollars the final result is not Bush 289 and Kerry 252.

What kind of odds are you offering?

We should probably preface the entire page with "expected", especially in any final EV tally section. We can remove such nomenclature after all/each state(s) certifies their results. Though in IA the election people said it would take a while to count the remaining (absentee?) ballots so I would not recommend including that state in any tally at this point. Do we have info for when each state is expected to certify their results? That could be interesting to put on the page somehow. Zen Master 01:25, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

I can call this right now

It's going to end up being identical to 2000 except Kerry takes New Hampshire and Bush takes New Mexico. Bush wins :( →Raul654 06:01, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Felt exactly the same way in 2000 as I watched helplessly and tried to will the votes of Gore up to match that of Bush. As a Canadian watching this election, it's hard to believe why anyone would vote for Bush after all that's happened in the last four years. :'(

The sentiment is very sadly dittoed. Looking on the "half-full" side of the glass, it's likely Bush's disastrous policies will turn away even more voters the next time, if America hasn't been nuked by then. Johnleemk | Talk 06:10, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

No, it really is that bad. What with Renquist dying, and the republicans in firmer control of the senate, Bush will actually get to make his mark on the court. Worse, what happens in '08 when Jeb runs? Oh, I think I'm going to be sick. →Raul654 06:12, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton in 2008? RickK 06:13, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand - it's one thing to have voted for Bush in 2000 because you didn't know he was evil. But to vote for him in 2004, after the crap he's pulled for the last 4 years - how do you vote for him and live with yourself? →Raul654 06:21, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense. Zogby and Electoral-vote.com were both projecting a win for Kerry with more than 300 EVs going to him. How were the polls in Ohio and Florida so wrong? I feel like crying. :-( Furthermore, Slate reports that it turns out that Nader gained most from "breaking for the challenger". This sucks. This really really really sucks. And not that it matters, but my fundy mother supports Bush because "Kerry's not seen as a strong leader, SO THE ANTICHRIST WILL COME OMGOMGOMG". She doesn't even know what's Kerry's stance on gay marriages, for crying out loud. Good thing she's not an American citizen, but that wouldn't really matter, would it? Johnleemk | Talk 06:29, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

So how does one go about renouncing one's citizenship and immigrating to Canada? —No-One Jones ^(m) 06:22, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I would seriously be very interested in knowing how many hits the Canadian immigration website receives in the next few days. I know I was looking at it after NBC gave Ohio to Bush.

Any Canadian who wants to live in a democracy and not a judical state are welcome to come to US.

For any of you who are going to leave the U.S. because Bush won a clear majority of c.3,800,000 popular votes (Gore only got a plurality of 1/2 a million, which the Democrats never shut up about), let me know when you're leaving. I'll see if we can put together a going-away gift. ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:39, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I suspect there's a deeper reason...I mean, who'd want to live in a country where a clear majority of the population was stupid enough to vote for a warmonger who was looking for an excuse to invade something the moment he was elected? Johnleemk | Talk 08:48, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Yes because most Americans are stupid when the vote for the GOP, but not if they vote for the Dems.

On the bright side: I don't have to feel guilty about voting for Nader. —No-One Jones ^(m) 06:38, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

There is really no point about griping... or claiming victory or anything. Eventually a third or fourth major political party will be established in the USA, and then this crazy polarized hub-bub will subside. Of course you have to wonder if the polarity was simply created for the media to toy with in the first place. -DK

Well, on a more serious note. I was a registered Democrat from 1968 (when I voted for Hubert) until 1998. I remember when Goldwater lost in 1964. Everyone was against him. Even the New York Herald Tribune, which described itself as "Republican Before There Was a Republican Party" (really) endorsed LBJ. It was an epipheny for the Republicans. They didn't spend there time blaming LBJ and the wily Democrats in Congress for their own failure. Instead they asked "what are we doing wrong," and they redid the party. Bad as Nixon was, there have been only two Democratic presidents since, and only one popular one. The Democrats have to stop blaming Bush and Karl Rove and the "stupid American voter" for its own failings. Every election since Newt Gingrich's "revolution" the Dems were going to win back Congress. Now Bush has gotten a big popular vote win and added at least two more senators and five more Congressthings. When the Democrats look in the mirror and ask themselves "what are we doing wrong," not "how can we get everyone to hate Republicans as much as we do," they'll start to rebuild the Party. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:12, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

But, what *did* they do wrong? Not appeal to fear enough? Not campaign dirty enough? Try to ennunciate subtle thoughtful positions instead of black and white us-vs-them? Should they try to act more like the republicans next time? In that case, I say "oh crap." But if the answer is actually that they should become more progressive, and differentiate themselves from the repubs more, then I say "woot." PenguiN42 03:40, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations from Users of Wikipedia 2004 U.S. Election

Congratulations to all who put in the time on this. It was a indispensible resource on election night. The event updates (network calls, campaign movement) was especially valuable. Thanks a million. S.P.--66.38.128.48 00:51, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

Wish the site had been faster, but I agree 100% with this sentiment. Thank you. Rhobite 01:08, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :) - it was originally my idea, but Fuzheado was extremely encouraging, and I believe it had the (totally unintended) result of encouraing many readers to make their first edits to Wikipedia. In that way, I think it was a smashing success. →Raul654 06:44, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

Massive Republican Voter Fraud?

How would we know if there was massive voter fraud on the part of republicans/religious conservatives? Did bush do proportionally much better in counties that "convieniently" were using Diebold touch screen voting machines, as compared with 2000? There are reports that some people could not select Kerry on the touch screen voting machines, selecting Kerry would come up as Bush on the confirmation page, it would take multiple re-selections to finally be able to vote for kerry. I'm interested in seeing a county by county comparison between 2000 and 2004, do any anomalies stand out? Have any statisticians looked at the overall results for evidence of massive fraud? Why was the site www.electoral-vote.com denial of service attacked for the last 3 days (it predicted good sized kerry win based on the polling data)? I bet no one will be arrested for DoSing that website, suspicious. It's inconceivable to me that bush could win by such a large margin. I would think the majority of troops in Iraq voted for Kerry, does absentee voting follow that pattern? Is my assumption wrong? In conservative states that were not considered toss-up Kerry seems to have done better than Gore, but not in Florida? Something does not jive. TV anchors were discrediting the exit polls before the results started coming in, but has anyone entertained the possibility that there is instead something wrong with the actual results? The one exit poll I saw had kerry up 4 points in FL, and he lost be 5, a 9 point difference?? Can a statistician calculate the odds or margin of error of that happening? If Bush had won Florida by a smaller margin I'd be less suspicious. Then there were the various stories I've heard about democratic voter suprression, ballots not received, sent to wrong polling place, discredited from voting, polling places with bush literature. Can someone calculate the highest possible number of votes that kerry might have been cheated out of country wide? What sort of undertaking would it be to add millions of votes in Bush's favor? What are the most anomalous differences between Bush's results between 2000 and now?

I hate to do this but I propose the creation of a 2004 election conspiracy article. Zen Master 10:04, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Voter fraud? Kerry lost by 3.7 MILLION in the popular vote. Are you honestly SERIOUS? Mike H 10:05, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Sure, why not start such an article, so we can humiliate Wikipedia just as we did with articles alleging that the CIA killed Nick Berg and that the Killian memos were real. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:08, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Zen Master, just a technicality issue, if you do create such an article, please name it as 2004 U.S. Election conspiracy. -- Sundar 10:12, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Technically the FBI can't arrest anyone for DoSing a site unless it can be proven the site owner was drastically negatively affected in monetary terms. Absentee ballots have not been counted yet. I'm as suspicious of how things turned out in Florida and Ohio as the next guy, but keep in mind there's a reason why they were called swing states. I wish the Democrats ran a more candid candidate. Like that Adlai Stevenson from the 50s. He was damn witty (try reading his stuff on Wikiquote). Johnleemk | Talk 10:23, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I just got reminded of that Golden Girls episode where Rose said there was a Mount Rushmore-esque cliff in St. Olaf, but with failed presidential candidates. Among the faces were Adlai Stevenson and Adlai Stevenson. Blanche asked why and Dorothy said it was easy; because he lost twice! Mike H 10:28, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Of course, there could have been --last night, I mean-- a UFO encounter near Florida of which we have been told nothing --by the Military Forces, obviously-- and which told the CIA how to magnetize the minds of the voters in order to tell people out of voting Kerry. Well, might be. Shal I start a page, 2004 US UFO encounter? Pfortuny 12:14, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Electoral-Vote.com was not the only site under DoS attack, so were a number of conservative sites (Instapundit and LGF, as two examples). Who shall arrest the perpetrators of those attacks, I wonder? I think we just have to accept that there are hackers and script kiddies on both sides of the political divide, so this kind of thing is going to happen. I hardly think it qualifies as "electoral fraud". Another thing, how can you claim that military personnel would have unreservedly voted for Kerry? Have you been to Iraq and conducted widespread polling? The last poll I saw of military personnel, including those who were in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the National Annenberg Election Survey. This resulted in a 69%-24% result in favour of Bush, that's around 3-1. Honestly, to suggest a page immediately be created detailing loony conspiracy theories just because you think troops would have voted for Kerry, and if they didn't it indicates fraud, is ludicrous. The main article on the election itself will detail the controversies, there's no need to rush off and create pages. Wikipedia is meant to be a source of information, not disinformation. Impi 12:40, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I am not necessarily saying there was fraud, I am just asking the questions of whether someone has entertained that possibility, and if so what would such a massive fraud operation look like? I believe it likely that such a massive fraud operation would have apparent anomalies in the results. Has someone determined which states disagreed with the exit polling and by how much exactly? The logistics of such an operation would be massive. Are you honestly telling me those super right wing religious types would not cheat for Bush if they believed it was their religious duty to do so? Either way, I do not trust those Diebold voting machines, they have to go, paper trail all the way. There are corporations with much to gain/hang on to from a Bush victory. If I determine there is very little chance of massive fraud or Kerry concedes I will congratulate bush on winning. Zen Master 15:10, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Are you honestly telling me those super left wing irreligious types would not cheat for Kerry if they believed it was their irreligious duty to do so? Either way, I do not trust those Diebold voting machines, they have to go, paper trail all the way. There are corporations with much to gain/hang on to from a Kerry victory. And now, where is the debate? Pfortuny 15:38, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Left wing irreligious types might do something like that but they do not have the power to do so. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The CEO of the Diebold voting machine company DID say he would "deliver" Ohio for bush a long while ago, how is that not blatant? [7] Will you admit that is suspicious at least? Are you saying we should not entertain the possibility of massive fraud at all? If you have any information on a similiar capability to steal the election by the democratic side please post that here. I say we give every family of a 9/11 victim, every family that has lost a soldier in Iraq/Afgahninstan and every soldier that has lost a limb one vote each in a new election, I'd definitely accept the results of that election. Zen Master 16:16, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

a) Yes. Also that his declarations might have given rise to suspicious actions on the Democrats'.

b) No. Never said so.

c) Yes, give them a vote (do they not have one???).

Bye. Pfortuny 21:07, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Also that his declarations might have given rise to suspicious actions on the Democrats'.

Are you saying two wrongs make a right? If democrats are cheating then fraudulent voting machines are ok? Isn't there an exponentially larger potential for fraud from hacked voting machines? Whatever happened to checks and balances? If Kerry willingly concedes then I am ok with the results, but we all should keep an eye on non-open source voting machines. Zen Master 22:10, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting I said two wrongs make a right? Because I did not and am not. Yes, we should keep an eye on non-open source voting machines. And also on open source ones, for my part. Pfortuny 08:06, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. I am surprised the networks have such a desire to call the presidential election quickly. I am reading about how in other countries it's standard to wait a few days in case recounts are necessary, we should do something like that in the U.S. The time necessary to do auditing should be built into the system before a winner is declared. Apparently the U.S. mindset is to find a decision quickly regardless of whether it is the correct one. We need more checks and more balances. Zen Master 15:34, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for people to look at this and also at Diebold_Election_Systems. I definitely think a conspiracy article is warranted. Sarge Baldy 06:30, 5 November 2004 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" or "controversy"? BTW, checkout [8], I first saw it mentioned here: [9]. Kevin Baas | talk 18:33, 5 November 2004(UTC)

[10] Now I'm pissed. Kevin Baas | talk 19:12, 5 November 2004(UTC)

I think a good way to resolve the ambiguous social sentiment is by examining the empirical data. Kevin Baas | talk 19:42, 5 November 2004(UTC)

the big results table

from its humble and hideous beginning, i am delighted to see that the results table has blossomed into an icon of quality formatting and clear technical communications. i would like to summarize the rules of nice table formatting here:

1. no fucking cell borders unless whitespace or color do not actually separate the data (look in the back of any academic textbook for some tables. do they ever have cell borders? no.)
2. no color fills, unless they convey some specific significance about the cell's data. fill colors should be chosen using a color wheel (Photoshop and The Gimp both have color wheels in their color pickers) for idiot-proof color coherence.
3. no weird-ass text alignment of the cell data.

following these guidelines will result in a clear, decent looking table.

respectfully, 141.213.64.62

Surely you could have gotten that information across without being as insulting as you were. Mike H 06:32, 5 November 2004 (UTC)

What qualifies as "weird-ass text alignment"? I messed around with the tables so the numbers were right-justified, in columns ~centered under their headers. It looks nice on my browser. If there's a better way to do that, I'd like to know. (I apologise for not updating the numbers in the table--I didn't realize they'd changed between the time I copied the text and when I posted my version.)

—wwoods 07:45, 5 November 2004 (UTC)

I believe 141.213.64.62 is referring to the left and center (default) alignment of numbers before —wwoods did the good job of making the numbers right-justified. Thanks a lot for doing the tedious work! Surely adding insults to an otherwise constructive comment do obscure the point. -- Felix Wan 21:55, 5 November 2004(UTC)

Ohio: A Report From the Front

To all to whom these Presents Shall Come, Greetings!
Since everyone from the BBC to NHK is in Ohio, I thought my fellow Wikipedians might appreciate some news from the Buckeye State, which is still too close to call from the latest poll numbers--see here: [11]. Matt Drudge says (around 3:30 PM EST) early exit polls say Kerry has a slight lead in both Ohio and Florida.
Now for some history. You've probably heard the endless stories about how no Republican president has been elected without Ohio. This is true. And we have a pretty good track record. In the last century, we've gone with the national winner every time except for 1944, when we voted for Dewey--but popular Ohio governor John Bricker was on the ticket with him--and in 1960 when we voted for Nixon. (When Kennedy and Nixon met after the election, the first thing Kennedy said to his opponent was "How the hell did you win Ohio?" A lot of people say it was advertisements with Ohio State's Woody Hayes's endorsement of Nixon.)
The lines are incredible at the polls. I was there when they opened at 6:30 AM and there was a line--there's never been a line before! I was number 15 in my precinct and by the time I left, there were probably another dozen. Now since precincts here in Warren County have about 600 voters apiece, thats five percent before seven a.m. Others I've talked to report incredible lines. One lady told me of standing in line for forty minutes and she was voter 197--at 9 A.M.! One-third have voted by nine! Another precinct was up to 260 by noon. Another lady said that she waited an hour and a half. Around noon, I passed by a church that was a polling place and there was at least fifty people outside in line--plus however many were inside.
Now, Ohio law says if you are in line at 7:30 P.M. when the polls are to close, you must be allowed to vote. I saw one elections supervisor in Florida, which has a similar rule, say he expected voting to be going on at 9 and 10 o'clock--Florida's polls close at 7 P.M. However, don't be surprised if someone sues to extend the polling hours here--that was successfully done by Democrats in St. Louis, Missouri in 2000 and the Republicans screamed bloody murder.
No doubt you've heard about the lawsuits already flying here in Ohio over "challengers". Ohio Revised Code (ORC) section 3505.20 authorizes challenges at the polls. Any party or group of five or more candidates can appoint challengers (ORC 3505.21). This statute is at least fifty-years old. The Baldwin-Banks set of the ORC says it was re-enacted in 1953 as part of the codification of state laws and so it was around then. (I heard someone on television describe it as a "Civil War era" law.) If the challengers object, the poll workers (called "judges" in the law) have a set of questions they are to ask a voter. The questions are listed in ORC 3505.20 and are sensible questions about a person's birth, how long have they lived in Ohio, etc. There were two suits filed against Ken Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state, one in Akron, the other in Cincinnati. The Akron suit claimed the challengers violated the famous section 1983 of title 43 of the U.S. Code, which protects the people from state officials attempting to deprive them of their rights "under color of law". The Cincinnati suit claimed the challengers were attempting to deny blacks from voting. In both cases, injunctions were issued against the challegers and an appeal was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. Sometime early this morning, they filed an order overturning the injunctions out of concern the plaintiffs lacked standing and weren't likely to win on the merits. (The eight-page opinion is available as a PDF file here: [12].
As for our machinery, about seventy of our eighty-eight counties use punchcards, including most, if not all, the counties that went for George W. Bush in 2000. In Warren we use the Votomatic system. Hamilton and the other heavily Republican areas of Southwestern Ohio use them except for Clermont, which uses the optical scan ballot. Only a handful of counties, about six, are using the electronic machines this year, but one of them is Franklin, where the capital Columbus is. Al Gore narrowly won the county in 2000 but Columbus is historically a Republican town. There is a possibility counties could run out of ballots if there is a heavy turnout of "provisional voters." ORC 3505.11 requires each precinct to have 101 percent of the registration on hand. Ken Blackwell is predicting a 76 percent turnout statewide, but up in Miami County, hundreds of voters couldn't vote in 2000 because the Board of Elections didn't have enough ballots on hand. In my precinct, they had 750 ballots on hand.
Newspaper endorsements probably don't matter much, but the Cincinnati Enquirer, a dependable Republican paper went with Bush; the Dayton Daily News, dependably Democratic went to Kerry, the Cleveland Plain Dealer (largest in the state with 350,000 circulation) didn't endorse either.
There's another lawsuit filed today by the Associated Press and other media against Blackwell over exit polling--see story here. Don't know which court has the case or if any ruling is forthcoming, but here's the facts. ORC 3501.30 provides for a hundred foot zone around polling places that no campaigning or contact with voters is allowed. The statute requires flags be placed at the hundred-foot limit to alert people. Nobody but "election officials, witnesses, challengers, police officers, and electors waiting to mark, marking, or casting their ballots" may "loiter, congregate, or engage in any kind of election campaigning" within that area. That means that press aren't allowed in polling places to shoot pictures or interview voters. Blackwell issued a directive on October 20 reiterating that and the press has sued. However, I'd note The Columbus Dispatch cleverly arranged for its employees to be appointed challengers in every precinct in Franklin and Delaware Counties to witness the voting. Editor and Publisher reports that the media are ignoring the ban: [13].
As for absentee ballots, they must be received by the Boards of Elections by 7:30 P.M. tonight to be counted. The only exception is if the voter was out of the country, it will be counted if it was signed and postmarked by today and is received no later than Friday of next week. The provisional ballots must be held until then as well--the Boards can't even begin counting them until then. The official canvass can't begin until the eleventh day after the election--i.e. a week from this coming Saturday--but must start by the fifteenth day after the election. (ORC 3505.32).
Now I probably won't be able to make additional posts on election day, but I'd be glad to answer questions about procedures here. As someone who has stood for office five times, I know a thing or two about our election laws. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 20:32, 2 November 2004 (UTC) P.S. In case anyone's wondering, Ralph Nader was disqualified. While he does appear on some Ohio ballots, no vote for him will be counted.

--- wow. that's more interesting than the article. Some way to make an article out of it? Especially about not counting Nadar's votes. Don't they have write-ins? 67.124.100.18 00:34, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, we do have write ins in Ohio. However, a candidate must file as a write-in, pay the same filing fee a candidate would who seeks to be on the ballot, and do it by the deadline. In Nader's case, by the time his petitions were thrown out and his court challenges failed, he had missed the write-in deadline. One reason the Ohio returns were so slow was because of write-in votes. In Hamilton County, the incumbent prosecutor, Michael Allen, was caught up in a sex scandal. He decided to withdraw from his re-election bid--he was unopposed--and so there was an all write-in vote. The Board of Elections chose to count all the write-ins before feeding the punch cards into the machines. Thus Hamilton came in very slow, producing few numbers beyond the absentees until after eleven p.m. PedanticallySpeaking 19:26, 5 November 2004 (UTC)

Grotesque Democratic Registration Rigging

Can someone explain why tens of thousands of new enrolments in swing states like Ohio including names like Mary Poppins at homes of registered Democrats? Reithy 12:22, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

• Just a note, we in Ohio do not register voters by party, so there is no such thing as a "registered" Democrat in Ohio. PedanticallySpeaking 19:30, 5 November 2004 (UTC)
  • Another note, demographics are more available and useful estimates of geopolitical orientation. Kevin Baas | talk 19:36, 5 November 2004(UTC)

Maybe you will find the answer in your flawed electoral system? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 13:18, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

That's not very nice, and uncalled for. The factors which allowed fraudulent registrations resulted from the local laws of each individual state and their conditions for voting, such as requiring ID (something the Democratic Party opposed). This is no problem with the country itself or its electoral system, it's a relatively simple issue that can easily be resolved by each state requiring proper ID before allowing anyone to vote. Impi 13:38, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I mean no offense, I had understood that it was possible to register in a different state than your original state, for instance a swing state, and I thought this was what Reithy was referring to. Fraudulent registrations are obviously wrong in any case. On another note, the electoral system IS flawed, but it seems it is not having a big effect on the elections this year. (This is the talk page so I am blatantly throwing my POV around.) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 14:31, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Could you give an example of an electoral system which has no flaws? VeryVerily 15:01, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Solitude, fair enough. While I disagree with you that the system is badly flawed, I agree there are some niggling things that could do with some fixing, like better co-operation between states to prevent people registering in more than one. Impi 15:25, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Try doing a white pages search. There actually are a few people named Mary Poppins in the U.S. But no, of course, people with funny names must be "grotesque Democratic registration rigging". And don't forget about that fraud in Philadelphia! That story was a real winner for you right-wing nutcases, wasn't it? Keep up the good work! --dreish~talk 14:21, 3 November 2004(UTC)

Dreish, first thing's first, please refrain from ad hominem attacks, even though your candidate may have lost. It's not conducive to constructive discussion. Secondly, while perhaps the title was a bit POV (this is however a Talk page, POV is allowed), acting as if there are no valid concerns about this issue is wrong. Fact is the controversy exists, it has been covered in the media, and it is as yet unresolved. [14], [15], [16]

We know for certain that at least a little bit of fraudulent voter registration occurred. What we don't know is to what extent it occurred, and whether it may have affected the election in any way. Therefore any constructive discussion should be focused at finding a wording compromise to represent this fact in a way to achieve consensus amongst our editors. Also remember that we have covered the controversy over electronic voting machines on Wikipedia, so I see no reason why a controversy over fraudulent voter registrations should not be considered. Impi 15:25, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course, in every large election there are a handful of people who vote twice, and people who aren't qualified who vote anyway. I stand by my comments, though: the right-wing, stung by perennial accusations of fraud and dirty tricks in past elections, are using their media echo chamber to drum up a story that Democrats engaged in fraud as well. They are concerned that some moderates might get the impression that Republicans are more inclined to cheat than Democrats, and are more interested in getting some accusations circulating than with actually finding the truth. However, it was not appropriate to aim the term "nutcase" at a specific user, and I apologize for that. --dreish~talk 18:35, 3 November 2004(UTC)

I think claims of voter registration fraud are missing something: if it occurs, it is not an attempt by one political party to steal the election. Rather, it is an attempt by hired registration-signer-uppers to pad their numbers (and their paychecks). The fact of the matter is that, although it may be amusing to note that Mary Poppins is registered to vote, there's no election fraud unless she shows up and votes. And if she DOES show up and vote — well, then she exists; so I guess it's not voter fraud after all. Doops 16:58, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. While I agree that most of it was mere number-padding, there is also the theoretical possibility of a set number of volunteers voting a number of times at different polling stations. Multiply that across the country, and you can have quite an effect, considering the number of volunteers each party has. Did it happen? I personally don't think so, or at least not as a co-ordinated action, but there's an example of how it can swing an election. Quite frankly, the sooner compulsory ID for voting is introduced across the US, the better it will be. Impi 18:09, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

I think a good way to resolve the ambiguous social sentiment is by examining the empirical data. Kevin Baas | talk 19:41, 5 November 2004(UTC)

Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio;s Secretary of State

The substub at Kenneth Blackwell could do with a lot more content. I've tried to add a little but, having had 3,5 hours sleep, I'm sure someone else could do a much better job (pticly as I'm not even American, let alone from Ohio ;o) — OwenBlacker 12:50, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

• There was already an article at Ken Blackwell. I deleted the stub at Kenneth Blackwell and put in a redirect. PedanticallySpeaking 20:00, 5 November 2004 (UTC)

Celebration

A brave President has been re-elected. How much easier would he have had it had he not toppled Saddam, Uday and Qusay, the thug, the torturer and the rapist. The rest of the world thanks your President for his courage and congratulates him on four more years! Well done. Reithy 08:19, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

*resists urge to strangle something* Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Reading that made me cringe, and I actually voted for Bush. Mike H 08:36, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Cringe, all Log-Cabin Republicans, while American patriots stand tall. Even us non-American American patriots. And when is that Viet-Cong lovin' John Kerry going to concede?

What does my sexuality have to do with anything? Mike H 22:01, 5 November 2004 (UTC)

"The rest of the world thanks your President for his courage" ... no, they really don't. PenguiN42 03:41, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

"I want to tell you what kind of greatness keeps us going, but this amounts to telling you what kind of courage we applaud, which is not your kind..." Kevin Baas | talk 22:08, 5 November 2004(UTC)

What this page really needed

Time stamps for the running updates, if we're keeping this for the historic record. You can see the trends turning, but you don't see the timeline. Maybe if we click our heels together and wish really hard the developer fairies will give us an easy way to timestamp. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:17, 5 November 2004 (UTC)

Don't five tildes (~~~~~) do that? For example, 08:23, 6 November 2004 (UTC)? Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 6 November 2004 (UTC)

Correct. 3 tildes gives your name, 4 is your name + timestamp, and 5 is just a timestamp. →Raul654 08:26, 6 November 2004 (UTC)

New table layout

I've been playing around with a new layout, but I don't have time to finish filling in the data. Feel free to use it, if you want. -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 5 November 2004(UTC)

	George W. Bush (Republican) 286	John F. Kerry (Democrat) 252	Other 0	Data source
National 538	59,006,610 (51%)	55,409,678 (48%)	905,333 (1%)	CNN CBS
Alabama 9	1,174,278 (62.5%)	691,830 (36.8%)	12,314 (0.7%)	CNN
Alaska 3	151,498 (61.9%)	85,819 (35.0%)	7,618 (3.1%)	CNN
Arizona 10	905,379 (55.2%)	724,589 (44.2%)	9,832 (0.6%)	CNN
Arkansas 6	566,676 (54.3%)	464,156 (44.5%)	11,955 (1.1%)	CNN
California 55	4,403,495 (44.3%)	5,427,055 (54.6%)	114,075 (1.1%)	CNN

I like this format. →Raul654 21:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I second that, great format, lets put it to use! Alkivar 01:18, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

Why Are There "Other" Election Pages Without Controversy Information?

U.S._Presidential_Election,_2004 for example. Zen Master 02:51, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

read down farther on the page you listed, there is a section for controversies. As there is no U.S. Presidential Election, 2000 article I cant point there for another example, but there certainly would be a section there. Alkivar 03:00, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

That just has a link to the "allegations/controversies" page, very little actual info, much less than this "in progress" page. For example the county maps of reported problems is not on the "other" pages. We should move all of the controversy section from this page to the "other" pages I believe. And we should know to update both pages? 80% of the content is the same, seems redundant to have two separate pages. The "presidential", "senate", and "house" pages should just be the table that lists those specific results I believe, there should be a main election page using the content from this the "in progress" page. What do people think? Zen Master 03:07, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar, that's 'cause you're capitalizing too much. U.S. presidential election, 2000. Boom. Also note that every presidential election is linked from the bottom of every other election. Jonpin 09:34, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

I used the same capitalization form as his example, I assumed that would be how all of them were. But apparently that one also has a nice large section on election controversy. Alkivar 17:34, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

The big garish map of incidents per state doesn't convey much actual information. The six states with more than 1000 incidents are six of the seven largest states--gosh, what a coincidence.

—wwoods 08:16, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

How were the popular votes per state gathered and compiled?

Kevin Baas | talk 20:11, 9 November 2004(UTC)

The Republicans made sure that the new electronic voting machines would give Bush both the popular vote and the needed electorial votes, as proven by the exit polls. Thanks for asking. func(talk) 20:39, 9 November 2004 (UTC)

Bwaaahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks, I needed some levity! :) But to make the point seriously, do you think there are no Kerry supporters among the people who programmed and set up the machines. We should have whistleblowers galore if anyone knew this to have happened, especially in so many locations. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:41, 9 November 2004 (UTC)

not to mention the fact that its a tin foil hat conspiracy to think that all 3 of the major voting machine companies are all in collusion to give GW the presidency.

Please forgive me. I am still in mourning for my country. func(talk) 23:35, 9 November 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to go with the empirical data on this one. Kevin Baas | talk 21:59, 9 November 2004(UTC)

I meant for this page. What are the sources for the numbers? Kevin Baas | talk 20:43, 9 November 2004(UTC)

The vote tables link to CNN and the numbers appear to be consistent with theirs. It is not a good source, though. CNN does not update its numbers by adding absentee votes. California totals on CA Secretary of State website [17] are almost a million more than ours and CNN by now. I also checked 2000 totals on CNN and CA Secretary of State. Same problem. CNN's numbers are less than CA official ones. It appears CNN never added absentee numbers in four years since 2000 election.

We should find an alternate source. Checking the state website for each of 50 states is fairly time-consuming. Anyone knows of one site which has up-to-date numbers for every state? Andris 19:05, 10 November 2004 (UTC)

Maine and Nebraska District Votes?

Is there anyone, who knows the presidential district votes in Maine and Nebraska. You need them for the district electors. I always only find the total number of votes in the state. --Braunbaer 18:50, 10 November 2004 (UTC)

Maine does not list the count by district until after the statewide vote is certified. you will be able to find it on this page after it is certified. PS: I live in Maine. Alkivar 00:08, 11 November 2004 (UTC)

Florida is certified

• Bush Cheney received 3,964,522
• Kerry and Edwards received 3,583,544 votes
• Nader and Camejo received 32,971 votes
• Peroutka 6,626 votes - Badnarik 11,996 - Cobb 3,917 - Harris 2,732 - Brown 3,502

But there are still uncounted absentee ballots! Kevin Baas | talk 19:06, 16 November 2004(UTC)

Do they count? [[18]] says "Official Results", or does this only mean "last news from state.fl.us"? At least better than CNN. Are there any other official results for other states? --Braunbaer 11:19, 17 November 2004 (UTC)

Help! After Kentucky lost?

I updated the election results with official numbers. Afterwards, I wrote a description of how some results are official and others are not. Somehow, after doing that, the entire page after Kentucky disappeared! I do not know what happened and I do not know how to undo it. Because of the fancy tables and coloring, I can't simply copy and paste it from my previous edit. Can someone who knows how to do these technical things fix it? -- khg 17:09, 17 December 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Felix Wan 23:50, 16 December 2004(UTC)

Thank you. I updated more results from today without any problems. But when I went to adjust the paragraph about which results are official, I found the problem. When you edit the "results" section, it puts all of the text from all of the results into the edit box. But there is too much text and it stops short. When I edited it yesterday, the wikipedia program must have assumed this meant to delete the end of the section. Is there a way we can set up the result paragraphs as its own section (i.e., w/o the individual results too)? -- khg

I have added a section marker before the paragraph that will need frequent update. It should do the trick. -- Felix Wan 23:11, 17 December 2004(UTC)

Thank you. It worked. -- khg

Archived deletion debate

For the archived deletion debate related to this article see Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election timeline/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:49, 27 December 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring

Now that we're fully out of the election cycle, this page seems to need refactoring. I'm not recommending deletion of any history or content, but things are poorly organized right now.

• The most glaring problem is that we have articles for both U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline and 2004 U.S. presidential election timeline. The former timeline emphasizes the time leading up to the eleciton, and the latter is election day and beyond. These should be merged
• There are detailed results that have little to do with a "timeline", and should be merged with U.S. presidential election, 2004 (detail)
• The Election incidents section should be merged with 2004 U.S. election voting controversies.
• What little remains (e.g. Pre-election odds) should be merged with the main U.S. presidential election, 2004 article.

-- RobLa 23:09, 26 February 2005 (UTC)