Wikipedia

Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 6

< Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

new breaking news/irregularity investigations article/split proposal

This aricle is very unwiedly. There may be a lot of important information in it but not everything needs to be included, as anything can be posted in another location linked to the page. You guys definitely need to consolodate or split or whatever can make this article appropriately concise. I say this as someone who wants good digestable information about the election problems. Please, this is a big mess. ~

The paragraph above was added by DeanoNightRider. I think this criticism can be partly addressed by directing readers to the summary article if they want less detail. I have added a note to this effect in the Introduction. Avenue 10:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we should split, or be prepared to split, the in the news and future investiations info into a true election irregularity breaking news/fraud investigation/arrests article. When the House Judiciary committee hearing starts next wednesday things could start hitting the fan very rapidly. The current article would be too unweildy to handle in such a situation and too daunting for new people to parse. This new ", official irregulations investigations" article (we can come up with a better title) perhaps should only report on official election fraud investigations and include brief explanations of the investigation evidence but with links of course to all the other election controversy articles. The key point to the article would be to keep the most recent information at the top, keeping everyone up to date. What do people think? Zen Master 23:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the sense in that. Remember election night when there was an article on the actual election, plus a second article on the progress of the election as it came in? SOmething like that? FT2 17:33, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
I think that the "Official viewpoints, investigations and legal actions" and "In the news" sections are approaching "unweildly" status, and am for doing something about it. I give my consent to the leading option in this regard. Kevin Baas | talk 19:57, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
I agree. I think these sections are causing the article to become unnecessarily bloated and unwieldy. I would support the creation of two new articles. Avenue 00:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV header is ok

I am ok if the NPOV header stays, it's really not a big deal, it may restrain some vandals (on both sides_ from making impuslive edits when they know we've already flagged this article as a controversial/disputed subject. However, when the VfD header had beeon there for exactly 5 days in a few hours I expect a speedy removal of that one. zen master 02:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't really care either way for similar reasons, but I'm not sure folks realize this is the second time the NPOV tag has been arbitrarily assigned by a 'non-editor', and discussed until it was removed... how many times does this happen before folks roll up their sleeves and contribute? If the existence of the article itself isn't NPOV (it isn't, it's factual), then the context of those facts and their presentation is the real issue - and that's up for everyone's input. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am fine with the NPOV tag being on the article, provided there is a (non-blanket) NPOV dispute on the corresponding talk page. Kevin Baas | talk 06:23, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

An accurate header may reassure some, and deter hasty misguided editing. FT2 10:20, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

The tag has not being "arbitrarily" assigned. The article, per the guidelines on the NPOV policy, can easily be shown to have POV problems simply from the fact that there are major complaints, as expressed in the VfD. Another obvious indication is that even though you ask for input, when it is given, people like User:Kevin baas respond by attacking another editor's intelligence instead of responding to the issue and others completely ignore other comments pointing out the bias. The chart at the top is biased in that it is made in such a way to indicate that these "problems" (which should be worded "alleged problems" to meet NPOV) were critical and had a huge impact, when running the numbers shows that even if every single allegation were true and ended up with a vote being taken from Kerry unfairly and given to Bush, the results of the election still would have been exactly the same. The length of the article (with daily "news" updates... this isn;t a blog, people, it's supposed to be an article) is way too long and needs to be condensed. Even the title of the article is biased. This article is a complete mess. Since the NPOV was added by myself as a result of the VfD last week, the article has not been improved in anyway. I'd take the time to make edits myself, but it seems clear from reactions on the discussion page and the history of the article that if I attempt to do so, the changes will just be reverted anyway. Those of you complaining that the NPOV tag should be taken off either need to make a good faith effort to improve the article in response to the frequent complaints or you need to agree to step away from it and let other people take a stab at it for a while without having to worry that a team of you will just undo all of it again right away. DreamGuy 13:42, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Which translates as "I'm not going to do anything except complaint and assume bad faith because 'I know' you'd delete what I do." Hmmmm......
No, its not a blog. But if people find it hard to handle when every last item is sourced and shown, how much harder would it be to comprehend it was a genuine controversy if it was summarised into just a couple of paragraphs and soundbites? It can't be done both ways. The consensus seems to be, give it in full, and over time as matters come clear it will either be a valuable resource, or become condensed, of its own accord. Right now its all a confused mess, for wikipedians and the outside world alike. I take your point about the blog aspect, I think thats one of the things that will clean up over time. Right now its just best as nobody knows 100%, to do as we're doing and list whats known, which seems on balance to win a fair degree more approval than disapproval judging by both votes.
As for "if every problem was a vote", the concern I think some people are seeing is that many sources out there, which include a huge range of people professionals and bodies, seem to feel the visible problems could be tiny compared to the invisible ones. FT2 15:06, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Now that you made some specific POV complaints on the talk page, there should be a NPOV tag on the article. Oh, I see you already put one up! Good.
Now let me respond to the issues:
  • Notice the map at the top says "Reported election incidents", not just "election incidents". I think "allegedly reported election incidents" would be going a bit far, as would "reported alleged incidents". In any case, these incidents, whether they actually happened or not, were reported to the Election Incident Reported System (EIRS). Everyone can judge for themselves what proportion of these reports were fabricated, based on how often they think people lie about such things. The article states no opinion on the matter.
  • Notice also that it says "incidents", not "problems" on the map. "Reported incidents per 100,000 votes"
  • Nowhere in the article is it suggested that these or any problems were critical or had a "huge impact".
  • The most serious problems, as stated in the article, and can be reasonably inferred, are the ones that we don't know about, which, depending on the a priori probability one gives to noticing a problem, (be it, for instance, less than 505) may be more numerous than the ones we do. Indeed, in recounts for local elections were there no known problems, the recounted results sometimes differed from the initial counts by over a thousand votes.
  • The number of misallocated/uncounted/overcounted/fradulant/what have you votes cannot be assumed to be directly proportional to the number of reported incidents. That is, one incident may generate multiple vote errors, or vice-versa.
  • The map is intended to show the distribution of incidents, not the overall quantity. And indeed, the map shows that in the majority of states, everything went smoothly.
    • One thing the map shows you is that when Kenneth Blackwell said that Ohio elections went more smoothly than most other states, he was lying.
  • The subject of the article is "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities". What? Where? When? Why? How? Hence the map. What do you propose we put there? A map of where chicken farms are in the U.S.?
  • Again (we have said this so many times, please remember the answer and don't bring it up again. I promise you will get the exact same answer each time.), whether or not a recount would change the result of the election is completely irrelevant. This subject of this article is not "whether or not a recount would change the result of the election", but "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities" which exist regardless of how people voted.
Did I miss anything? Kevin Baas | talk 17:43, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
In my view, the tag has been arbitrarily assigned. It was put on once, then taken off after long debate, then as edits continued, it was placed back on, with NO correlation to alleged POV in the actual narrative, 'talk' page discussions to bring them to light, or good faith attempts to edit them. The existence of a VfD on an article doesn't warrant the addition of an NPOV tag. If the VfD is created due to allegations of violations of NPOV, but the tag has to be added to the page subsequently, then I think those bringing the VfD have circumvented the step most crucial to Wiki... participation in good faith as editors.
So, adding the tag is arbitrary to me. Your feelings and opinions aren't arbitrary, you're welcome to them. But applying the tag in the current context was.
As an example of the importance of adequately describing the context, Zogby's representative at the Congressional Forum admitted that there were 'unprecedented irregularities' in the election process this year. This is yet another organization which is at least acknowledging the scope and nature of the controversy of this election. Their statement was not 'only one in 30000 people complained about the poll errors'. The existence of irregularities is not diminished by the existence of other, smoothly-conducted votes.
As to your interpretation of the chart. The chart lists only how many complaints per voter were reported and their ratio. Your own discomfort with the graph is evident in your own conclusion that it:
"is made in such a way as to indicate that these 'problems' were critical, a huge impact, when in fact [...] the results of the election still would have been exactly the same"
That is your own POV, not the chart's. The chart says nothing of the sort, and the outcome of the election is NOT THE ISSUE. The chart (modeled after a chart published in the Boston Globe and based on non-partisan election report data) is merely an indicator of how many issues were reported and the 'proportion of the varying kinds of issues within the total set of allegations'.
And your protestations that people need to 'step away from it' and allow others, who have not even begun to participate as good faith editors, to take over, is counter to everything Wikipedia stands for. There is no reason we cannot edit it all together, especially as this issue is becoming more (not less) active in the media and governmental circles. I hope your edits are a shining example of NPOV, but I will agree with you that your edits may indeed be re-edited by others for POV (as is the Wiki way), based only on your 'chart' observation, as in that instance I'm not sure you fully recognized fact, narrative, POV and NPOV objectively. I'm probably wrong and I welcome you to contribute.
Your own prejudice, not the article, causes the POV. You can change and improve the article, etc., to provide a different, more accurate, more complete impression, but blaming that graph as an example of POV merely illustrates my point. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was about to take Dreamguy's complaints seriously, but as Kevin dissected, DG's complaints don't seem to hold any water. However, I still think we should keep the NPOV tag on the page just because there are people that will fanatically believe the article is POV just because it exists, without reading it objectively. We should add that quotation and citation to the republican statistician/academic that agreed the exit polls were suspicious (he also hinted maybe the demos conspired to make the exit polls look bad for bush, a possibility everyone should consider). Compared to all other controversial articles on wikipedi the election controversies articles do a very good job at NPOV in my opinion. We should be on the lookout for anon IPs adding POV etc (from either side) editing the article just to make it seem like the pro-deleter's arguments that there are POV problems is valid, at least one of them (Netoholic) has seemingly used similar tactics previously. zen master 18:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
WP:NPOVD "marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article..."
If no such contributions are made then I cant see that it can be justified in being left as it is. At the least it should be switched for a "controversial" header. FT2 21:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Move day-by-day chronology to timeline article

One factor that's causing the bloat in this article is the newsfeed aspect. This overemphasis on an extremely detailed chronology is most evident in the "In the news" section but shows up elsewhere as well. For example, the current content under 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities#Green Party includes a long chronology. I suggest that everything in "In the news", plus similar material elsewhere (like the Green Party chronology), should be moved to U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline, which is the appropriate place for the day-by-day stuff. This article should summarize the key information. The summary would have to be updated as events occur, of course, but that doesn't mean using a chronological format. For example, with regard to the Volusia County lawsuit, whatever article reaches that level of detail (if any does) should just present the status: "A lawsuit that sought to overturn the results in Volusia County, Florida was dismissed as having been untimely filed." As it is, a reader who wants to know about that subject finds the suit mentioned in the separate chronology under "Blackboxvoting.ORG", then much later finds it mentioned again in the "In the news" listing for November 24, then finds the dismissal mentioned in the "In the news" listing for December 5. If this suit is worth reporting, which I'm inclined to doubt, then the information about it shouldn't be fragmented that way. JamesMLane 19:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the split, but if there is something (or a lot of things) that are in the current timeline that are too specific or too verbose we should just remove it. The timeline in the parent/main article can be much much smaller, there is no need for 50-75% of that stuff, I agree. I think of it as place to put new info before we figure out where to put it in the rest of the article, once the info is no longer new we should trim the In the News section to be just significant events and/or just stuff from the last week or so. zen master 20:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Remember there is no other source for an interested researcher to get a list of newspaper articles related to the election controversy. I am concerned about length, too. I just think that 10 years down the road this may be very useful to someone writting a report for their sociology course or something of the sorts. Kevin Baas | talk 22:08, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
If this timeline is incorporated into the main election timeline, it will lose probably 90% of it's content and all of it's value. I'm not against a split (I in fact recommended it way back when), but I disagree with integrating/demolishing this timeline against the main election timeline.The vast majority of these news articles are irrelevant to 99% of election readers, but relevant to nearly all election controversy readers... -- RyanFreisling @ 22:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article itself shouldn't be used as a temporary holding area for new information that someone hopes at some point to insert somewhere else. If the purpose is to assemble a bibliography, organized chronologically, of newspaper articles on this subject, for the benefit of researchers ten years from now, then it should all go into some new article like List of newspaper articles about 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy. Note also that these two rationales are inconsistent. If zen master gets around to removing "In the news" entries that are incorporated elsewhere in the article, then it won't be the comprehensive bibliography that Kevin Baas wants. Finally, I don't agree that this section has much value to the "election controversy readers". They'd be better served by a topical presentation, rather than, as we have now, a topical presentation with a day-by-day chronology attached. JamesMLane 23:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am completely against another new article being created for the in the news section. Your points will be more valid after the {current} header is removed from the article in a few weeks. Until then an in progress current event article should certainly be allowed to include many different issues and aspects, shouldn't it? And I reject the notion it's all that different. Kevin and I certainly can disagree on what In the News should be without the "compromise" be move it to a new article, my suggestions were counter suggestions against your proposal. The in the news section is very relevant, it's the best way to find the most recent statistical analysis when new ones come out which includes research on debunking/reverse debunking. We can change the "In the news" section to a "Latest information and upcomming events" section or two, which would chronicle when data became available, when hearings were and will be held, when protests were and will be held, when the electoral college will meet, the inauguration date etc etc. The in the news section is relatively small, why do you want to create so many tiny daughter articles? We can perhaps start pruning stuff from November first if size is your main concern. zen master 01:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think me and zen-master are mostly in agreement. As regards trimming, I am not against it in principle. I have intentionally been a little ovrerzealous in the news updates: "better too much than too little", thinking that it can always be trimmed but it is much harder to go back and find old articles. (which is the research point) As time went on, I feel I got better at assessing news-worthiness and article uniqueness, so there should be more "fat" at the top than at the bottom. I just don't want any trimming to be overzealous.
I am also in agreement with james that the news items would be well served by a topical presentation. It doesn't seem to me like the new info is really making it into the article. Perhaps we should make a list of relevant issues, this being one of them. I started a list below, listing everything as a question. Kevin Baas | talk 20:31, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
I am actually not particularly concerned about the length of the main article so much as its readability. The news doesn't hamper the article's readability (it's well organized by date, and is concise at the item level). However, I do believe that lumping everything on one page is a poor way of organizing information when the wiki makes it so easy to seperate it out. I really don't see a problem with creating "yet another page", as long as there's a very obvious link somewhere near the top (right before/after the intro) of the main article telling you where you could go to for further developments. noosphere 09:50, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

internal, reductive

  • selective criteria for news?
  • trimming of news?

internal, constructive

  • separate article/section for upcoming (vs. past)?
  • news should get topical presentation?

external

  • separate article for news?
  • main election timeline, incorporation of this news info into?
  • involvement of wikinews?

qualitative

  • what are the "purposes"/"benefits" of in the news; what is it there for?
  • how does the "ongoing events" status factor in?

I've thought about a news article too. I know, "one more bloody page". But the news articles relate to all of the pages really. What about putting the news section on Wikinews though, with a permanent link from the articles to it for readers of wikipedia to catch their daily updates? Would that make sense? FT2 21:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Clint Curtis, et. al.

Link: http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120604Madsen/120604madsen.html

Description: White House-linked clandestine operation paid for "vote switching" software

Discussion

This one's a whopper... can anyone find the original affidavit or is this just BS? --kizzle 23:37, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

The affidavit can be found here and the general story was broken here. Note that I'm not saying it's completely bogus, disinformation, nor valid. Exercise your own judgment, this is the U.S.A.! -- RyanFreisling @ 01:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Damn, this one looks pretty good so far. Anybody find out more information about Curtis please post it. --kizzle 04:27, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


Its already in the journal. Madsen is generally not taken seriously by some sources but the story is. Its being investigated. Watch blackboxvoting for updates on this one. meantime its already in the pages with appropriate caveats as to potential question of trustworthiness and supportive views. Dont sweat over it, it would be nice but dont hold your breath, theres other activity too. FT2 04:38, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Did you spot this gem of unlikeliness...?

"Feeney and other top brass at Yang Enterprises ... wanted the prototype written in Visual Basic 5 (VB.5) in Microsoft Windows and the end-product designed to be portable across different Unix-based vote tabulation systems"

Clue - VB5 for unix would be possibly the single LAST thing anyone would program in, its almost impossible to find a LESS suitable means.

Er, I don't see the problem. VB is a perfectly good prototyping "language" (if you can call it that, probably RAD tool might be better), while the end product could have been written in something entirely different. What's so hard to get about that? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As a computer programmer myself, I can corroborate this. First clue is that Microsoft and Unix are antithetical. But it's quite possible the client was a layman and didn't know this. Kevin Baas | talk 20:01, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
I'm not defending the veracity of the claim, but based on my knowledge of the capabilities of the VB5 IDE it's not implausible to imagine if, for whatever reason:
  • VB5 and Windows was the desired platform for ALL source code
  • flexibility to provide unix executables might be needed for some environments
  • open source was undesirable (due to many reasons)
  • and most importantly, that the source code never leave Windows.
If I understand the VB5 IDE, that would fit the profile, as it can compile exec's to run under unix, but its' source code unavailable except in Windows VB5. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I interpret the sentence as meaning "building a workstation whose *output* is compatible with Unix-based..." Which is only good systems design, and therefore unworthy of mention, so maybe I'm wrong. -- Baylink 22:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think Madsen's full of shit, wasn't he the one who wrote about the Saudi financing and the $29 million pricetag on the election? However, I don't see any mention of VB5 or Unix or the quotation you provide in the actual affidavit...? Curtis and the affidavit seem pretty rock solid so far. --kizzle 02:19, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Apologies guys - I'm taking back my comment on Visual Basic. After reading the RawStory article it seems this impression I had that Microsoft VB and Unix were not suited for each other, was flawed. Now more information is available, I've updated the article to reflect what now appears to be a more accurate version of what the sources have said. FT2 21:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

cleanup header inappropriate for the article

Please list general article comments, clean up possibilities and/or POV problems with the article here. The cleanup header is woefully inappropriate in my opinion, especially considering the fact there are few open talk page discussions and the article just overwhelmingly survived VfD with a vote of keep (was not a vote to keep only if cleaned up). zen master 06:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disputed

Firstly, I think this article is great, and I've fought to keep it. So please don't attack me for asking questions! Anyway here they are:

Many critics of electronic voting...

"The 2004 election brought new attention to these issues. In particular, many critics of electronic voting machines pointed to widespread discrepancies between exit polls conducted during Election Day and the officially reported results. They argued that the official results were more favorable to Bush than were the polls, and that these discrepancies were more likely to arise where electronic voting machines were in use and/or in swing states. They concluded that the exit polls showing a Kerry victory were probably correct and that the official totals from the machines were wrong. Expert opinion was divided concerning what implications should be drawn from the cited discrepancies."

  • Which critics? Who argued these facts? We need to know so we can verify what they are saying.
  • Expert opinion: why experts? I'd like to know!
The entire section on 'exit polls' and the subsequent child article are the places where you can find these answers. Detailed there are various media and independent agencies associated with the exit polls, the researchers involved (the Caltech, Berkeley, Freeman, 'Wired' magazine studies, etc.) and the general chronology of the studies and their counters. Your question probably points to a need to address this in the main article narrative a little more clearly, however. Good one! -- RyanFreisling @ 15:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Embarrassing

Can someone please delete this page? It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed to even have wikipedia.org in my bookmarks, while this page is here. I can see how one or two pinkos couldn't handle the outcome of the election, but there is no excuse for an encyclopedia embarrassing itself this way. Not to mention all those blurbs in Current Events that no other respectable news source gives any attention to (irrespective of political orientation).

copied from the top of this page:
This article was listed twice on votes for deletion. Peter O. (Talk, automation :: script) 05:25, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
For a December 2004 deletion debate over this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. For a November 2004 deletion debate over the deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy.
What's embarrasing is the 2004 U.S. presidential election, as this article elucidates. Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
three things that are certain in this world, death, taxes, and ignorance. --kizzle 23:03, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Look, there are hunderds of millions of voters in US. OF COURSE, there will be some black man who got run over by a truck on his way to the polling station. Just think of the number 100,000,000. Think of how big this number is. Shit happens. Black people tend not to vote to begin with. That doesn't make the election invalid. Kerry himself CONCEDED already, and had no second thoughts about it. Let it go. (As a side note, if you ask me Dems have only themselves to blame for nominating a loser candidate. All the money in the world couldn't get him elected. He didn't have charisma, clear platform, or the will to fight muslim terrorists. It was clear that he only went to Vietnam just so that he could betray his comrades and crap all over their sacrifices for political gain. People like that need to be court-martialed, not elected leaders of the free world. But I'm digressing. Just delete this page pinkos, you are embarrassing yourselves more than you are embarrassing the wikipedia community). This unsigned comment left by 68.107.102.129 19:18, 12 Dec 2004, who also edited others' poor indents
"Greatness means leading the way: No stream is large and copious of itself, but is fed and guided by so many tributary currents. So it is with all intellectual greatness: it is simply a matter of 'pointing the way' suggested by so many affluents, not whether one was richly or poorly gifted originally." -Fredrich Nietzsche Kevin Baas | talk 23:26, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
"Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good." - Vaclav Havel -- RyanFreisling @ 02:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Maybe you should ask yourself just *why* it embarasses you. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) 00:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You should ask yourself why no news organization is carrying this. Why is Comrade Baas forced to link to some PDF and a measly calendar entry on some racialists' web site.


Personal response:
I think you're under a misapprehension here, and its one that many Americans' ancestors sacrificed their lives for, so listen carefully. First off, those contributing are not "losers" or "pinkos" or any other personal attack. They are by and large, people who think America is slightly more important than the politicians, and that democracy and doubt over votes isnt an "embarrassment" or "sore heads" but fundamental to your liberty and theirs. They are concerned that although there are issues in every election, this election has a floodgate of them, more than any election before - and that not one or two, or 50%, or even 70% of them seem to be one sided, but that almost all the big ones where theres evidenced questions are. They have said repeatedly, if there is evidence that these are minor issues, add it to the article, don't just complain about it, and you know what? Nobody has come up with sources saying that the issues raised by various investigations, experts and affidavits is untrue.
The evidence (which you clearly haven't bothered thinking about) is in affidavits and House documents, official State documents and records, and public testimonials. About 40,000 of them at the last count. It's based upon the fact that Secretary of State in Ohio and election officers in Florida are dancing as hard as they can to avoid being made to testify. It's based upon the fact that not one and not two, but every computer specialist who examined the voting machines says they are childs play to hack and that there is strong computer evidence that they have been hacked during elections. Thats a little more than trivial.
As for me, Im not affected by the election, so I don't give a rats **** if Bush wins or Kerry. What i do care about is that there is a lot of strong evidence that this vote was affected in an improper manner, and that your comment suggests you prefer a nice uncontroversial life to an honest one. Do you value America? Are you proud of its democracy and freedoms? Do you realise people died for the right to vote and have their votes count? This isn't about Bush or Kerry. This is about what those hard-won rights mean, and at the first hurdle, to say "Oh I dont want this discussed because its embarrassing" is a bit like having aids and not telling your partner because you might upset them. Its fatal, and wrong, no matter how hard. FT2 01:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


Lets see. In a few posts we have:

  • "pinkos"
  • "Black people tend not to vote to begin with"
  • "silly lefties"
  • "lunatic radical racialist" (j. jackson)
  • "losers"

I guess you didnt read WP:NPA yet. That's okay, but its noted. FT2 01:22, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

The article could use trimming, but it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Anything that's been the subject of studies from MIT, Caltech and Berkeley has to be worth having an encyclopedia article on. Johnleemk | Talk 07:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the spirit of the holidays

News

(copied from above)

The news articles relate to all of the pages really. To keep the main article tight, what about moving the news section on Wikinews, with a permanent link from the articles to it for readers of wikipedia to catch their daily updates? Would that make sense? Or a page on its own? FT2 06:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Cleaning up talk page. If anyone else wants to help clean this page up, feel free. Either move sectins to daughter pages or to archive, preferably the former.

Also, FWIW, the main discussion topic right now is what to do regarding in the news, the talk page section being titled something like "day-by-day chronology...". Kevin Baas | talk 19:00, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

We may be better served simply archiving most/all of the current talk page and starting discussions fresh, with concise clarity in mind. zen master 19:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

News flash

Cliff Arnebeck brough his case before ohio supreme court today, but i can't find an article specific enough. All I got are these two: [1] [2] Kevin Baas | talk 20:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Gotcha. Added. [3]
That's a copy of [4]. What I mean is that there are only two different stories being circulated in the press. Kevin Baas | talk 21:19, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
I thought you wanted corroboration of the piece being run, in this case on abcnews. I'll keep my eyes open. I'm sure we'll hear more about it if/when the Court responds, as well. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

News

We really need a topical chronology for this stuff. I think that should be the priority right now. A lot of significant stuff has happened and is going on that people need to read the news articles to get any clear idea of, including:

  • many public hearings in ohio
  • 2 congressional forums in ohio
  • 2 recounts efforts in ohio
  • lawsuit about provisional ballots
  • lockdown of public records
  • obstruction of Freedom of Information requests
  • protest against electoral ballots being cast
  • congressional requests for ohio not to cast electoral ballots
  • electoral ballots cast whilst recount is ongoing
  • evidence of attempt of fraud in recount

I really think these need write-ups in the article. A new section, "Chronology", until a better title can be found or solution worked out? Kevin Baas | talk 21:44, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Do we have an Ohio Recount page? --kizzle 22:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
We have an Ohio page, which could use a better recount section. If the idea is "yet another page", i'd suggest a problems in ohio, and legal actions in ohio (including recount) page. Perhaps a "recount ohio page" could be written up as if it would be stand alone, and then put into the ohio page? The ohio page isn't yet linked to the main article. (BTW, the florida page should be deleted, IMHO, insufficient info.) Kevin Baas | talk 23:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Alert

A radical keeps removing this from ongoing events. Kevin Baas | talk 23:28, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

News of recount fraud called "superfluous" and removed form current events by Carrp. [5]

I'm on a (self-imposed) 2 revert per day per page limit, so someone else has to handle this. Kevin Baas | talk 23:58, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

There's nothing to "handle" on the current events page. I realize this is a major issue for you, Kevin Bass, but it's isn't for the vast majority of the US, let alone the world. There's a link on the current events page to a story on the electors casting their votes. This is an ongoing story and deserves to be included. The other link was superfluous and was therefore removed. Please do not add it back. Carrp 00:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. I will not see that day. Kevin Baas | talk 00:07, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

In addition to that story being superfluous, it's also ridiculous. BreakForNews is about as credible a source as The Onion. It's a left-wing conspiracy theory site that should not be included as a serious source. The "evidence" is the hearsay of one anonymous informant. Perhaps this is why the mainstream media isn't interested in the story. Carrp 00:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's true the MSM (mainstream media) isn't really interested in the story. It's also true that lots of people aren't interested in the story. However, it's not true that the story is 'bs' or partisan. David Cobb said what he said and alleged what he alleged in a public hearing before members of Congress. It is noteworthy and a real event that's on the record, regardless whether the first link posted was from a 'left-wing' site or not. It just happened today, so further corroboration and links need to be, and have already been provided. However, I'm not going to go so far as to say it belongs on 'Current Events', much as I respect Kevin's passions and conviction. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just checked out 'Current Events' and yeah, it certainly isn't less important than the South Korea cannibal conviction. It currently reads:
Which is good for me. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. The mainstream media consistently reports much more drastic claims on less evidence than this.
  2. I know little about the source, but political characterizations of a new source mean nothing to me, except that:
    1. it shows that the person making the characterization judges by prejudices, rather than reading comprehension and critical thinking
    2. it discredits the person making the characterizations
  3. you do not dispute that the event did indeed happen, so why do you question the "credibility", when you in fact believe the story whole-heartedly?
  4. Would you believe the U.S. government if it told you? Have you been listening? The U.S government has been listening and speaking. Let's test your reading comprehension, who hosted the forum? What were they investigating?

that's enough for now. Kevin Baas | talk 00:29, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to me, and it never will: putting all bias, predispositions, and prejudice aside, i.e., taken at face value, is it not significant, in any circumstance, that:
[x presidential candidate] cited one case detailed by an --as yet anonymous-- informant, that a [x company] employee had told staff at the [x county] County Board of Elections office to inconspicuously note a prepared recount result, then report this data irrespective of the actual recount. The [x company] representative had also tampered with [voting equipment made by x company] in the offices.
"This is going on, all over the state," [x presidential candidate] told the [congressional judicial] hearing.

Maybe when I'm senile I'll understand. Kevin Baas | talk 00:44, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I think in a nutshell it's this - the process is unchanged. The hearings were held, and a suit was filed, but there has been no official impact on the process of the Election thus far. This is not to say itmay not be coming. It's also true that a bunch of people are pleased with this Election's result (what % varies based on who and what Republican-owned voting machine company you ask) and want nothing to do with any hint that 'their team' could have rigged it - to whatever conscious extent, the victory justifies the means. It's no more complex than that. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I understand this. I understood it by myself; the explanation was unneccessary. Simplicity is no justification. The election results are not the issue. The election process is the issue. I know it is difficult for them to come to terms (read the liberal/conservative empathy link in the article), but that fact has no logical validity, and no place in a critical debate. The sooner they become disillusioned, the less painfull for them. Again, I understand the psychological impetus, and I think that the best way to deal with it is by drawing the borderlines where they should be and holding them there. Kevin Baas | talk 01:13, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
Thank you Rathergate, for cowing the media into not reporting anything highly controversial, and thus defining anyone who dares speak such blasphemy as a liberal whackjob... truly we thank you. --kizzle 10:15, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Archiving

possibly sections 1-12, and 14-21 can go? Kevin Baas | talk 23:46, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

yes, with the possible exception of #1 (ask kizzle/james). Also, the archive should continue to be in time range terms, e.g.: Archvied discussion from date X to date Y (discussion that were inactive as of date Y). I can do it later perhaps. zen master 02:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zen master, thanks for mentioning me in connection with section 1, but my thoughts on that subject became section 19, Need for a concise generalized summary article. The summary article exists at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. As long as that article remains for readers who want an encyclopedic summary, I'm not going to press my disagreements with the way this long, detailed article is organized. Therefore, I don't object to the archiving of anything on this page. JamesMLane 02:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Archivage completed per Kevin's proposal, archive 5 created, moved inactive discussions as of dec 13 2004 part 2. zen master 05:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disappearing sources

With time many if not most of this article's links to external sources will break (sometimes due to a reorganization of the external web site, but often because the external articles are deleted). I know that there are copyright issues involved, but is there any way we could archive this external information so that the main article does not become gradually useless as its sources become unverifiable? noosphere 10:00, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Pick sources more carefully. Reliable ones generally don't disappear for at least long enough to be indexed by the Wayback Machine. --Korath会話 14:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would say 'a few, perhaps some', certainly not 'most'. Most of the sources cited are long-running established news organizations, and others can certainly be condensed as the editing continues. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To save source articles that this page links to, use archiverProxy, at http://logicerror.com/archiverProxy . It is a proxy that you run on your local machine, which then archives every web page (and all versions of that webpage, time-stamped) you view, saved into a local archive which can be later viewed. The script may have a few bugs; test thoroughly before depending on it. Under Linux, I had to make some minor changes to get it to work; it may work as-is under Windows.

Anonymous contributor, please sign your comments with ~~~~. In any event, this is no more useful than manually saving the page with your browser - you can still view it, but others cannot. Even if you then serve it to the net at large (a glance at archiverProxy seems to indicate it does not), the credibility of the source is compromised. --Korath会話 08:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

relevant RFC listing

User:Carrp has been listed on WP:RFC here. Kevin Baas | talk 21:01, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed

This article is in dire need of a cleanup. I'll list the major problems for now:

  • Page size: The page is currently 126KB. Articles over 32KB should be reduced or split. It's quite difficult to read or navigate an article that's so large.
  • News: It's great to have links to sources but this is overkill. Older links should be deleted if newer ones have more up to date information.
  • POV issues: I know this a sensitive subject, but this is an encyclopedia article and should be as unbiased as possible. Some examples:
  • Introduction: "Unofficial results currently indicate a victory for George W. Bush over John Kerry." The electoral college voted for President Bush on December 13. The article should reflect this fact (as well as when they are certified on January 6th).
  • Controversial or irregular aspects of the 2004 election: "...that Bush's apparent win in Ohio was so narrow..." The Florida 2000 election was narrow. Ohio 2004 was not.
  • Redundant information: There are already pages for exit polls and voting machines. There's no need to have so much information on this page. A short synopsis with a link to the sub-pages would suffice.

I understand that it will take some time to get this article in shape, but the time to begin is now. Carrp 23:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carrp... good stuff. And if these are the major problems, I consider this article in great shape! A question - is this a heads up/request, or are you gonna roll up your sleeves and join the unwashed ranks of the editors?
  • The first bullet I agree with. With 'External Links' and 'News' gone, the page size becomes around 70k, a much easier volume to get one's head around. It's important to note this because that ~70k is where the editing needs to be - the external links / news section is much more bibliographic.
  • The second I do not agree with (I believe removing old articles doesn't serve the historical function that section was created for) but I support intelligent placement on news elsewhere (news currently adds around ~300 links to the page total).
  • Yep, NPOV is crucial, and sometimes perceived POV arises from outdated info, like your first example, etc... The POV concerns you cited:
  • 'unofficial' = I agree with your comments. I took a crack at it. What do folks think?
  • 'so narrow' = 116,000 votes is narrower than many states, less so by far than others. You have a point - Done!
  • Redundant info - I agree it's dense, possibly redundant. Why not jump in and edit it? If you'd rather not because it involves moving content from one page to another, and you'd like your edits to be transparent, that's understandable. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I suggest the logical place for the news bullets should be (naturally!) on wikinews, listed as an ongoing item. This can then be sourced by any wikipedia articles referencing the election controversy. Not only it will save much space, but these things are in fact news, and ongoing, and wikinews is new. FT2 08:00, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
Help me understand, will they appear as a consolidated list, or be scatted amongst other events? -- RyanFreisling @ 15:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've edited the introduction to make it a lot tighter and less redundant. It contained way too much specific information. The article and sub-pages go much more in-depth, as they should. Carrp 19:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

News Sources / Data Mining

Excellent source!: [6] Kevin Baas | talk 04:23, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Excellent, comprehensive source with data on fraud by numerous means, specific examples:

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/youngstown.htm
(I'm gonna mine it soon)

Also, someone posted this detailed list/issue summary at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x188497

-- RyanFreisling @ 06:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Watch the POV

Watch the POV Carrp. I, as the others, appreciate your efforts in cleaning up the article. However, ommitign things like "votes for kerry were registered as votes for bush", and adding "allegedly" to the statement about diebold knowing about the machines counting backwards for at least two years, when diebold has fully admitted that they knew and there is hard documentary evidence, and other such edits, are, and I hope you can see this - slanting to misrepresent the credibility and the severity of the irregularities, which by any measure cannot be considered NPOV. Kevin Baas | talk 21:07, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I'm sure there were also cases (reported or not) where Bush votes were registered as Kerry votes. The whole point of the voting machine section is to show that they are currently not very secure or reliable. Perhaps it can be restated as "The voting machines have, at times, registered votes for the wrong candidate." As for the issue of adding "allegedly", it originally said "...manufacturer ES&S are said to have known about (but not rectified) this issue for two years..." The link was broken and it sounded very much like it was alleged, not proven, that ES&S knew of this issue. Please edit this sentence if this is not the case. Carrp 21:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the first issue you brought up: Quite right, carrp. There were 2 cases reported where Bush votes were "alledgedly" registered as Kerry votes. It will take some time to find the source for this again. Basically someeone took the time to go through all the records at voteprotect.org.
On the second issue, I understand; I can see how it reads that way. I have some other issues i'm working on, but i'll get back to that if someone doesn't beat me to it. In the meantime, just be carefull, please. A lot of what's written is written by people who have read a lot about this, and the wording is specific. But we don't want this to become a clutter of citations, so it might not be cited. In any case, if it is cited, that's something to double-check edits against.
Keep up the good work. Kevin Baas | talk 21:30, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
Caarp, here's the source for the 2 cases. As I said, 2 reports of a vote for bush going to kerry, info compiled from voteprotect.org (EIRS). [7] Kevin Baas | talk

Looks like we got a lot of catch-up work.

Read about litigation in Ohio here and here.

maybe this section warrants a daughter-article, so we can make this article smaller?

On second look, some of that is pre-election or on election, and, although relevant, is disputable whether it warrants content. And in any case, 4 sub-articles would be pushing it. I'd be very reluctant to go beyond 4, and am reluctant to go to 4 in the first place. But the scroll bar on my browser is maxed out, so we probably do need to revisit this issue, whether in regards to in the news, official positions etc., or both.
In the news is about a 1/4 of the page and is a subsection of "external links" which is 1 of 5 main topics, but constitutes roughly 2/5 of article, though promoting the "in the news" header would not be unreasonable and would make the ratios more proportional. Kevin Baas | talk 06:27, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
Ya, Carrp's work is very helpful in making this article more concise, but we probably need to work with that as well. FT2 seems quite interested in WikiNews, and the reservations seem to be centered around the novelty (embryonic-ness) of WikiNews, partly because, and this has not been mentioned yet, last time I checked there wasn't an article for the controversy there, as there isn't a lot of articles there yet.
A possible compromise would be to have this page still have a in the news section, but drastically cut down to include something between twice to five times as many events as have been or will be listed in current events, or to constitute some roughly fixed proportion of this article, and a link to a wikinews article, which would have a full list of events.
A concievable alternative is, if we do make a new article regarding "remedies" (official positions, legal actions, etc.), we could split the news between the two as is relevant. Most of the new news would then be on the remedies article, and it could be effectively considered a remedies/in-the-news sub-article. Pending other suggestions, perhaps this is sufficient to have a survey? Kevin Baas | talk 06:44, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Voting machine improprieties

Carrp, some good edits today - but one issue caught my eye. You removed a very significant portion of the voting machines stuff (see the diff) - if it's because the source was 'commondreams' (a 'left-wing' website), removing it was too draconian. The examples raised have been corroborated in numerous sources, and exist throughout the article(s) themselves. And an outright removal of the content removed a good part of the value that section. Can we discuss these things on 'talk', so the article's hard-researched conclusions don't simply evaporate based on one editor's assessment of the 'validity' of the source? Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I deleted some of the section wasn't because I felt it was inaccurate or worthless but because it is already discussed in great depth on the specific voting machine sub-page. This article needs extensive pruning and it makes sense to have the main page discuss the major points while leaving the specifics to the sub-pages. A section that's too long can harm the value just as much as one that's too short. Carrp 00:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is my mantra. "The best producer is a reducer". However, what was left did not communicate the value of what was taken away. Yet another issue with 'subpages'... the balance bet. parent article and child. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Review

I've left this article alone deliberately for a few days, to think about it and get some perspective. I think a look from 1st principles matters, if this article is to come under better quality and closer compliance to wiki standards.

When this article started, the subject was murky, undocumented. There had been no investigations, no affidavits, no media coverage except a large number of odd reports that together suggested there were "irregularities". In that climate, it was important to document everything, because the only rebuttal of claims of sore losership was to nail down the facts. There were irregularities, there was evidence, it was of wide interest, it did cover many interlocking areas. To an extent, it still is controversial of course, but I think now it's safe to say we are well past those days. The matter is now documented in more legal ways, more formal ways. Those interested are now political coallitions, house committees, and investigatory organisations.

Whilst everything in the article is accurate and valid as far as it goes, I would like to propose a complete reworking project on the side, of what needs to be said with regard to the entire election controversy situation, covering all 6 articles.

The aim of this will be:

  • To re-think what belongs and what doesnt: Never mind what we have all written so far. What would a well designed article say now on these topics? That should be our standard
  • Use and quantity of evidence: The articles have a lot of research material of value to everyone. But it is now no longer needed to cite it all in big paragraphs. It was before. Now we can summarise a whole issue in a few lines with references, and it will be credible.
  • What can be assumed: To keep this article in a good state, what can we now assume is not so controversial, and therefore can be summarised or omitted in a shorter space?
  • What articles are needed: We have 6 articles, I think. 7 if we split out news. Do we need these? Is this the best organisation?
  • Types of issue: Since the election, some aspects of the issue are now more mainstream, and we are not under pressure to "justify" them as much. Nor are we a news page (as the "anti-bloggers rightly say) to list every blow by blow accouunt without summarising. Some issues can be stated sourced and done. Others, such as voting machine company ownership records and such, are less well known, and may still need to be included at more length, perhaps in an article called "2004 Election controversy (other issues)" or "(connected controversies)". So we need to think what aspects are given what space too.
  • News: how and where news should go, to avoid article sprawl
  • Duplication and omission: With multiple articles, sometimes an item is in one article that is relevant to another (eg a news item on voting machines in ohio should technically be noted on 3 articles. This hasnt't been well co-ordinated or managed so the articles have to an extent not served their full purpose as they could. Planning would help.
  • Wikipedia guidelines: In what ways does the article not meet wiki standards? What do we plan to do? Which ones will we address now, which will we let time take care of so as not to remove information needed at this moment, and which are inapplicable to this article at present?

I would invite anyone interested to contribute to this review, those who have worked on this page and its connected articles and added so much, and those who watched in dismay as it grew. And especially, those who feel doubts in certain areas, perhaps we can find a way to address those to, if they are concisely stated.

The link for the review page is here TO BE ADDED, and once a draft framework is set up, I'll add the link. Note that I am setting it up in my user space, but that doesn't mean I consider myself to "own" it. Its just a place we can thoroughly review this article and its fellows from scratch, what belongs, what doesn't, without everyday talk issues intruding. FT2 01:16, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Doubleplusgood. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I took the initiative. As with FT2's proposal, so to this, in my namespace: User:Kevin_baas/2004_us_presidential_election_controversy_review. Kevin Baas | talk 23:28, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

See also section: template? Category?

What should be in the see also section?

Should we make a template for the see also section, to be used on parent and daughter articles?

Should we make a sidebar navigation?

Should we make a category for us presidential election, 2004, controversy?

Kevin Baastalk 22:43, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Quickpoll: in the news

Things are moving too slowly. I'm ready to just make an article "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, in the news" article. Can I get some consent/dissent first? Kevin Baastalk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Yay.

  1. Kevin Baastalk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Nay.

  1. Wait until the FBI starts arresting people before creating a new article I say. Either way it will all be over in 1.5 to 4 weeks (so save your energy). This article (having overwhelmingly survived 2 recent VfDs) is the "safest" place for now I bet anyway. zen master 19:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nay. Too slowly for whom? It's premature to just subpage it off now, I think. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Not if it's just the collection of links cut and pasted from here. Trim them—and especially, be more careful about what's added—instead. Many, such as those dealing only with the gubernatorial recount in Washington, are weak tangents at best, and the editorials and opinion pieces really don't belong. —Korath会話 03:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm also ready, at that point to make a category called "U.S. presidential election, 2004, controversy" to be a sub-cat of "U.S. presidential election, 2004". Kevin Baastalk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Yay.

  1. Kevin Baastalk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  2. I like this idea but titles peferably should not contain commas, certainly not two. zen master 19:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Looks good - but if you're gonna just go ahead and do it, why are we voting? :) -- RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nay.

Done. Category is "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities". Feel free to check it out and discuss includes/excludes. Kevin Baastalk 20:42, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Three more vote topics: Kevin Baastalk 20:42, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Should a template be created for the see also section of this article and daugther articles? (this would save trouble synchronizing them)

Yay.

Nay.

Given the category created, can we be more lax on article count, such that we can create a 2004 ohio recount page to complement the moss v. bush page (and seeing also that this is a relatively big thing in the news)?

Yay.

Nay.

Should a new article be created for officials views, investigations, legal actions, etc., including recounts and contests, called something like "remedies", and summarized herein, as was done with voting machines, exit polls, vote suppression?

Yay.

Nay.

Hocking County

As much as I am confident there was massive fraud, and as much as I would like as much as possible to in some form be discovered so that something can be done about it, being a computer tech myself...

From what I've read, the computer in question is an old PC, like the one in front of you right now, but older. There's nothing special about it. You cannot modify the data on the computer by dismantling it. You can't even access the data. You can take the hard drive out and put it in another computer, but you have to turn that computer on and access the data through software. Data must be accessed through software.

What can be done with dismantling a PC and messing with the hardware: you can change the video card, soundcard, lan card, etc. You can change out disk drives, at best, but see above.

Now from what I've read, he replaced the "battery", which was dead, (not uncommon for computers that are old) and entered some info into the computer. There is only one "battery" in a PC, and that's the "CMOS" battery. It stores information about the hardware setup of the computer so that it can boot and access the hardware properly. It provides power to memory that stores: processor speed, memory type and quantity, AGP or PCI video, what disk drives are in the system, boot order (what drive to boot first, CD-ROM, floppy, hard drive), and stuff like that. It does not access data or software on the harddrive. it does not touch the hard drive. you dont' need a hard drive in your computer to get to the BIOS (Basic Input-Output Service) setup, where you set these things. On most computers, you just press F2 or DEL while your computer's booting. It will usually say "Press [key] to enter setup."

Since the battery was dead, the setup information was lost, and could not be preserved, so the computer wouldn't boot properly. So he had to replace the battery. It's a little circular wafer about the size of a quarter. Then he had to put the information in the BIOS setup such as processor speed, hard drive capacity, etc.

That seems to be, at least, the official story, and it's plausible and makes sense. Now that he was unattended? Well, one can only guess. Kevin Baastalk 01:37, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

The article I read about that situation (like 1-2 weeks ago) claimed (and people testified to this at conyer's ohio hearings I believe, in more than one precint, regarding more than one technician) there were election workers willing to testify in a court of law that the supposed "battery" repair persons were in fact up to no good. The techician(s) asked and was told which precints were involved with the 3% recount (something they have no business asking about) and they then "reprogrammed" the machine allegedly to make the recount look like nothing was out of place. I believe per ohio election law it is a felony for these technicians to even have be messing with election equipment after an election, even if it was just "battery" related. I can find that article if you want me to, i think it was on democraticunderground.com. zen master 07:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
They may have called it a ¨battery¨, but it may well have been the power supply (which, with some imagination, could look to the uninitiated like a car battery, and it powers the computer)... or maybe the PC was powered by a real external battery. However, since the people observing the technician were most likely completely computer illiterate that ¨battery¨ could really have been anything, including the hard drive itself, which stores the data.
Furthermore, even if the hard drive wasn´t replaced it could still have been accessed by the technician from his own machine without taking it out (ie. by connecting to it via an IDE/SCSI cable). Unless the observers were well versed in what the internals of a computer looked like any of this could have easily happened.
Personally, as a professional, senior UNIX sysadmin, I would not trust that the original voting data on the machine was intact unless there was a tamper-proof physical seal on the machine (ie. the kind the IAEA uses to secure nuclear weapons and power plants) and it was unbroken; and unless the machine was otherwise inaccessible physically, over the network, or through a modem; and unless the software and hardware was open to public scrutiny, had undergone multiple independent security reviews and could in some way be verified as being on that particular machine at the time of the vote and recount; and unless there was a voter-verifiable paper trail which could be counted by anyone, anytime, and for any reason.
As far as I know none of the voting machines or vote tabulation machines meet even a fraction of these requirements, and the electronic voting machines probably meet none of them. So to me no matter what these people do or say the Nov 2 election was easily hackable, unverifiable, and therefore illegitimate. noosphere 12:09, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Uhh..

I'm an interested reader, so I don't know exactly where to put this, but here goes. I like that there's a page on this issue, but this is just bull.

"Kerry's results were deliberately withheld in order to create the illusion that he was actually losing. While Bush's results came in thick and fast, Kerry's came in painfully slowly. Listening to the CBC's (Canadian Broadcasting Commission) election coverage, I found that Kerry was stuck for a long time on 112 electoral college votes while Bush's total continued to rise. After what seemed an inordinately long time, Kerry's figures rose to 188, but only after Bush had gone to 200. Kerry then stayed on 188 while Bush climbed to 204, then 210, then 238! At no stage were results released in an order that would lend the least credibility to the idea of a Kerry victory. While Democrats agonized over the strategic delays, the Republicans turned on miracles in two states which at best looked like being extremely close, Florida and Ohio. In the case of Florida, the results from the most heavily Democratic counties came in last. By reporting only the results for the other counties, the illusion was created of a pro-Bush trend."

This section of the article makes me cringe anytime I see it. The reason why Kerry 'stuck' was because all of his support was on the West coast and Northeast. See, there's these things called time zones. The polls in the West closed later than those in the East, thus the reason why Kerry's electoral count 'stuck' at 112 while the Midwest results came pouring in. While the linked article might have a point when it comes to Florida and Ohio, the inane drivel prior just undermines their position. Please remove this link and quote - it's embarassing to read, even for a Kerry supporter. (I'd do it myself, but it's the only complaint I have, and making an anon edit doesn't feel right.) --24.163.47.13 01:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I concur with anon. I've had similiar qualms with that section since I first became aware of it. Does anyone object to it's removal? Kevin Baastalk 02:03, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
I didn't contribute this content, and I'm not sure about the widespread acceptance of the source, but the updating of changes to the electoral count was alleged by some in this roiling controversy to have been conspicuously manipulated. Can we sum it up with a 'Some alleged that the timing of announced changes to the electoral count was rigged.' or the equivalent? This seems a good oppt'y to replace a paragraph and excerpt with a sentence, as we discussed a few weeks back. And our job is not to cull the stuff we disagree with, but rather describe the length, width, breadth and depth of the salient facts of this ever-changing issue as concisely as we can, along a continuing path of reduction. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I was fully expecting an objection of this sort, and was prepared to suggest marginalizing the allegation to the exit poll article. Kevin Baastalk 03:01, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
Marginalization works. My problem is that the linked article/quote put forth a conspiracy theory yet convienently ignored the fact of the differing closing times. So it's not as much of a personal disagreement, but that unmentioned fact makes this quote look glaringly dumb - which drags the rest of the page down with it. I'm very interested in seeing these issues played out, but I'd much rather see more credible/important events prominently quoted/linked rather than this one. I suspect the linked source isn't terribly.. knowledgable, but I don't have the time/expertise to analyze it in detail. --24.163.47.13 05:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) Editted --24.163.47.13 07:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What say you, Ryan? There are three combinations: summarize into a sentence, move to exit polls, or both. Perhaps putting some balancing comments on the theory in the article as well (if moved), so as to isolate it, and thereby keep it from affecting the credibility of the rest of the article? Kevin Baastalk 06:15, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
In the next edit, those two bulletpoints (prior to the bbv section) can be reduced to a single sentence, and the excerpts removed, imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to this. Kevin Baastalk 08:14, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me - I don't object either. FT2 10:36, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Moyer

And off topic: FWIW, the "and denigrates the lawsuit that he claims to be impartial to" is completely factual and objective. Moyers claims that he is impartial to the lawsuit, and he does, in that same article "attack[s] the character or reputation of" the lawsuit. (As well as the Contestors.) Every word and every sentence structure was completely factual, and presented the facts in a clear and straightfoward manner. That's what he did. Period. Ya, what he did was oxymoronic and taboo, but that doesn't change the fact that he did it, and doesn't make stating it POV. That's my reasoning for that wording. Again, FWIW. Kevin Baastalk 03:13, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
Might I add, too, that his denigration was on fully erroneous grounds. The Verified Election Contest Petition contains multiple specific, explicit, and obvious assertions (stronger than "suggestions") that "Ohio election officials engaged in illegal conduct", in direct contradiction to what Moyers stating in the ruling. Kevin Baastalk 03:17, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
Describing his behavior as 'denigrating' the lawsuit is not nearly so npov as quoting the actual case, imho. 'Denigration' implies an undue debasement, which itself implies a judgment as to the appropriateness of his decision - which is, as yet, undecided - and thus pov. also imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The word "denigrate" as defined here, does not include or imply the condition "undue". Nonetheless, my second paragraph clearly demonstrates the denigration in question is, from a logical (and thus legal) standpoint, undue. This is not an opinion. Kevin Baastalk 03:32, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
One does not 'denigrate' something if it does not possess worth. Only something of value can have its' value' denigrated. Describing the judge's actions as 'denigrating' the case is a valid point of view, but it's a point of view nonetheless. You are entitled to believe his rulings are denigration of the cases brought to him, but that's not an objective, factual assessment unless the truth is borne out that he is applying an undue debasement to the merits of their case. That's not our call to make for the community yet. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Self-correction (resolve edit conflict): on the bottom of the page cited it defines denigrate as "to charge falsely or with malicious intent". Nonetheless, the I'd ask any sane and rational person to attempt to sincerely dispute my second paragraph, and thus the fact that it is undue. Kevin Baastalk 03:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
With regards "call to the community", then perhaps we should juxtapose the judge's statements regarding the content of the filing and the actual content of the filing? Kevin Baastalk 03:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
You lost me :) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was being rhetorical anyways. I said that theoretically, the best way to provide npov would be to place the judge's statements regarding the content of the filing, and the actual content of the filing, side-by-side, for the reader to compare. Kevin Baastalk 03:45, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda figured out what you meant - something like a "The judge determined the case, which contains evidence and affidavits ranging from [...] was 'wholly without merit'" etc. etc.? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One would have to put the relevant things side-by-side. But the problem is it would take up too much space. And although statements like "the claims include specific allegations of Ohio election officials engaging in illegal conduct" in a summary of the filing document would be considered NPOV, somehow when it is placed next to a news article stating that "justice Moyers states that "the claims do not include specific allegations of Ohio election officials engaging in illegal conduct" it magically transforms into POV. Kevin Baastalk 03:54, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
I'll mull it over, but I think doing just that is the right tack towards npov, not more pov. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm just complaining about the logical incoherence of what I percieve to be a popular rubric of "truth" assesment. As much as I'd like to introduce as little noise to the information channel as possible, I'm conscious and wary of the psychological aspects of interpretation. As Nietzsche says, it is not that people do not like being decieved, in certain cases they prefer it. It is that people do not like the occasionally damage caused them by deception. Where deception is less painfull than non-deception, to the extent of what affects a person psychologically, that person readily recognizes such deception as the "truth". (Nietzsche also points out that there is always something arbitrary in a philosopher "stopping here"; not investigating further into the "truth".) As a friend of mine puts it: people don't want the truth, they want answers. But I digress, I'm happy with whatever you put. Kevin Baastalk 06:03, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
Not totally happy with it, but i put something there. Maybe I'll refresh my memory and we'll put 'comprises ~30 separate points, etc.' -- RyanFreisling @ 06:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the article that you just found interesting, the court case is "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. et al v. Blackwell" [8], more cases involving blackwell can be found here. Kevin Baastalk 03:59, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
We happy few, we goalies of the memory hole. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Electoral college

I think there should be a section about how this controversy is manifest in events surrounding the electoral college, such as the protests and the contests. Kevin Baastalk 19:42, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Current events presence merited?

  • Ohio, Moss v. Bush: Contestee George Bush's election campaign asks Judge Moyer to dismiss the election contest. [9]

Kevin Baastalk 17:48, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

It's too premature to discuss, imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Section on floor debate

I think the objection and the debate merit a section in the article. Perhaps under recounts and suits? Anyone want to initiate this? Kevin Baastalk 17:12, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Ryan, do you think that content you just added could go under the new section i created in the recounts and election contests section? Kevin Baastalk 22:17, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies/Archive_6&oldid=1124405445"