Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Original research

From Wikipedia:No original research:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories (Wikisource is).

Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report, not an essay. Please cite sources.

My contention is that we are drawing conclusions of our own with this article, not reporting the conclusions of reputable primary sources. The individual data points are not the issue, as those are from good sources. The problem is the words being put around that data, and the conclusions being reached. That is the major problem with this article right now. -- Netoholic @ 22:57, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify, is there a difference between a conclusion of fraud and a conclusion of data irregularity? If so would your point only apply to conclusions of fraud, so data irregularities would be more allowed? Either way we should fix it. Zen Master 23:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cite sources? The article is a deluge of citations. There are too many sources. If you see anything missing a source, I'm sure we can find 10-20 sources for you upon request. Kevin Baas | talk 23:31, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Cite sources for the conclusions (see below). The data is one thing, but this article draws its own serious conclusions based on that - and that is the Original Research problem I'm talking about. -- Netoholic @ 23:37, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any conclusions. Kevin Baas | talk 23:45, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Then this article should not draw any of its own. That leaves us with an article that is simply a collection of external links to news articles that each only discuss small aspects of the "controversy". That is not worthy of our encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 00:00, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I meant that I'm not aware of this article drawing any conclusions. Remind me to be less laconic when talking with you.

So you're saying that we have to choose between two supposed evils (which in theory apply to any articlem, and therefore your complaint is reducto ad absurdum), and therefore that this article shouldn't exist?

You are exagerrating something that is to an extent unavoidalbe and is being seriously worked on via organization and scope discussions on this page, in order to persuade. That kind of talk goes in one of my ears and out the other. Sorry for my irritated tone. Kevin Baas | talk 00:18, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

IMO, this article is somewhat POV, even if it's a POV I agree with. There are no good sources cited, mostly some rather cursory correlations with no controlling for known demographic factors. For example, optical-scan machines are not evenly distributed, so demographic changes may correlate with changes in optical-scan results simply because of where they're located. Would other explanations, such as an across-the-board increase in Republican turnout in all counties (optical-scan and not) result in the same correlations seen here? There's no attempt to answer questions like that. This is why they are just some guy with a webpage, not actual published studies: They don't meet any reasonable criteria of statistical analysis, and would never make it through peer review. Until we have some reliable sources, I don't think this article really has anything worth writing. --Delirium 00:09, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, you are concluding for the reader by stating alternative conclusive theories, or basically conclusive theories in general about op-scan machines. This page should and is entirely justified to note the correlation between discrepencies of counties with optical-scan and those without. To conclude that this alone constitutes "proof" that the voters were duped is an entirely different matter. Stating the mathematical correlation is *not* POV. Stating that because of this fact, there is voter fraud or anything of the nature "because X is Y and P is Q, this is wrong" is concluding for the reader and might evidence POV.

Just on a side note, your hypothesis about across-the-board voter turnout seems highly unlikely, how is it that a significant amount of counties leaning strongly towards the democratic side in registered voters become "republican strongholds overnight" as Keith Olbermann points out. And how is it that in all those counties there are tens of thousands of extra votes above and beyond the total registered voters? Your theory could not account for either of these two facts and is directly contrary to both. (in the nicest way possible) ;) --kizzle 03:46, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Please offer evidence for your claim that it does not "meet any reasonable criteria of statistical analysis"? How can you possibly say that? Election results should be given the same consideration as statistical analysis on this page, why do you favor "official" sources?. Anyone is free to offer evidence against the current statistical analysises with their own on the page. Isn't the point of wikipedia as a 'peer reviewed encyclopedia? Again the article really should be thought of as "in progress", I suggested putting the rapidly changing current events header on the page a few days ago. Zen Master 00:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The evidence is that none has been published: Just some guys with websites. They have not even submitted their analysis to peer-reviewed journals or conferences, much less had it accepted there. There is no controlling for demographic factors; no discussion of various causational hypotheses and relative likelihoods; and in general none of the work that is standard in statistical analyses. It's just a dump of raw correlations, which are useless: Correlation does not imply causation, as anyone working in the social sciences knows, so if you're making causational hypotheses (such as "this data suggests voter fraud"), then you need to back them up with discussion other than raw correlations, such as correcting for known factors and discussing why alternate explanations are less likely. --Delirium 00:40, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

One of those guys with websites is the official Florida vote count website, check the external analysis where she gets her numbers from. Be patient, MSNBC's Countdown will not be the only major news network to carry it. --kizzle 03:51, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

They have submitted it for internet peer review, how is that different from wikipedia? I can provide articles about the mainstream press "supressing" this story for one reason or another, would that allay your concerns as to why such stories don't exist? These statistical analysises have given a very low probability that the data irregularities appeared by chance. I've seen no counter statistical analysis that explains the data irregularities -- feel free to perform one. Zen Master 00:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Internet peer review" is not peer review. I'm talking about submitting it to actually competent journals or conferences, not some guy with a geocities site. --Delirium 02:02, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Primary sources

First step, and I'll need all your help, is please add to this list links or citations to primary sources that have drawn conclusions (positive or negative) on the issue of election irregularities. From these, we will summarize the views, and present them. -- Netoholic @ 23:12, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

I agree with the request. If people here are going to argue that Wikipedia users doing analysis on raw data doesn't constitute original research, the least you could do is post your data sources and methods so that they can be verified. Particularly in the Ohio article, I'm concerned that some of the conclusions, such as the Cuyahoga County correlation, are not statistically sound. Rhobite 14:03, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Sources which have drawn a conclusion about overall election irregularities

The stop hand totallydisputed image is BUSH? wtf

Someone is messing with the totallydisputed header image? Zen Master 23:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is being disputed?

I am completely unaware of any significant dispute of neutrality or factual accuracy on this article. Why does it have the dispute tag? Kevin Baas | talk 23:36, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

For one, the "results plot -- Florida" is speculation on causation from correlation without discussing why this causational hypothesis is likely. One explanation for the data is that in rural areas (which correlate well with small precincts), support for Bush among Democrats was relatively high. Another explanation is that there was vote fraud. The article currently suggests the latter explanation without explaining why the former explanation is less likely. Indeed, exit polling shows the former explanation to be much more likely, as many more Democrats voted for Bush (14%) than Republicans voted for Kerry (7%): So the 45-degree line is not what you'd expect from the exit polling. --Delirium 00:35, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

[1] Don't forget to scroll down. Kevin Baas | talk 00:47, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I don't see how that link addresses my points. It's still using registered voters by party as its baseline, which will over-predict Kerry votes since many Florida Democrats did not support Kerry, according to exit polls. Using exit poll numbers as the baseline would predict a trend line of closer to 50 degrees than 45 degrees. --Delirium 02:05, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, you should be using the raw data from exit polls, not the ones on CNN or what have you. (otherwise you're tacitly assuming a conclusion) Secondly, you should use the ones for Florida, not the national. And finally, you should go ahead and factor that in, and see if there's still a significant discrepancy. Just looking at the scale of the left axis of this graph, I'm guessing it's not going to make a lot of difference. Kevin Baas | talk 03:01, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I think we need to find (or emphasize if its not found) the distribution of rural areas using op-scan and those that aren't and compare registered voters to actual votes by party. That would clear a lot of these issues up. --kizzle 03:54, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Concur. --User:Mickazoid 04:54, Nov 11, 2004 (EDT)

No, I emphatically should not go and factor that in and see if there's a significant discrepancy, and your amateurish analyses should be removed as well. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. --03:21, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Put differently (in order to preserve the intent I interpret in Kizzle's post), would your concur with "Important to the validity of this issue is the distribution of rural areas using op-scan and those that aren't and a comparison of registered voters to actual votes by party. That would clear a lot of these issues up."?

It is certainly one of many factors that ought to be studied, but not by us. We ought to wait until someone respectable has completed a reasonable statistical analysis of the available data. Until then, simply saying "there are no conclusive analyses" is better than quoting some guy with an ImageShack account. --Delirium 03:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

And what process, other than the reasoned discourse here, do you propose for examining the factors and issues? Prejudice or bias about ImageShack or GeoCities (hosting companies) is a weak assertion of invalidity about the content at issue. Do you have relevant statistical analyses to share? Do you have specific information invalidating current assertions? That's where we should be concentrating.

Look, that's unfair. It was reasoned argument, I think characterising what Delirium had said to be bigoted it not very nice. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By 'bigoted', I didn't mean a racist correlation. I've changed the word to 'Prejudice'. My apologies for any offense. - User:RyanFriesling 11:15p, 12 Nov 2004 (EDT)

I sitll think you're missing the point: It is not our job to perform statistical analyses, validate or invalidate assertions, or do any of this. We are an encyclopedia, and report on the state of accepted knowledge. If there is no accepted knowledge, we report that too. The fact that things are hosted at ImageShack and Geocities is prima facie evidence of their amateurish nature, and this is further confirmed by the poor quality of the statistical analysis, which is simply a raw correlation in a domain in which raw correlations are worse than useless. Saying "look at this correlation relating to voting machines!" is no more useful than pointing out the (true) fact that ice cream consumption is highly correlated to murder rates. They both happen to be facts, but neither fact alone is actually useful. --Delirium 11:24, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I truly wish you would expend your knowledge of statistics in refining the information already present rather than opting for its complete removal. --kizzle 20:33, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to call for those that dispute the factual accuracy of the page to copy and paste any potentially infringing sections verbatim here for further discussion as to remove the tag as quickly as possible. --kizzle 04:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

News page?

This article was on the news list on the main page a few minutes ago. What happened? --ComplexZeta 00:01, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Ah it's back now. --ComplexZeta 00:06, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

User:Netoholic seems to be intent on keeping it off of the frontpage at all costs. -- Schnee 00:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not too surprising if he's a Bush supporter, given how many people view the main page. --ComplexZeta 00:21, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I am not a Bush supporter, could care less. The problem is that this article is poorly written, such that front page prominence is damaging to Wikipedia. It also is prone to vandalism, and is still in what I consider very rough draft form. The data and wording is also controversial. Any one of these would be reason not to have it on the front page. Please don't attribute qualities about me without warrant. -- Netoholic @ 01:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I agree with netoholic, while he may support Bush, that is irrelevent. This article is firstly not in a state where it should be featured on a main page, and we need to heavily check sources before we can place it on the news page. Constructive criticism of this page is vastly important, as it only helps refine the evidence and material we already have. --kizzle 03:57, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs on the front page as it currently stands. It's not very much in the news, and there are no peer-reviewed studies (or even reasonably comprehensive studies) we cite, just some quick calculation of correlations and conjectures of causation with no controlling for demographic or other factors. Until it's either in the news more or we get some solid statistical analysis, I don't think it belongs on the mainpage. --Delirium 00:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, if you would like to help contribute, please list any sources or calculations at the present moment which you feel are inaccurate or irrelevent. :) --kizzle 03:58, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

To pick just one of literally hundreds of problems with these amateurish calculations, the correlation between e-voting and exit poll discrepancy is meaningless. It's only an even remotely suggestive correlation if you assume the distribution of e-voting vs. paper voting is random, which does not appear to be the case. The standard way of doing statistical analyses like this is to identify a set of potentially relevant factors, and then try to show that one of them is highly predictive even when the others are controlled for. This analysis has not even attempted to do that. --Delirium 03:35, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

The 'There were two kinds of issues:' section says nothing in my opinion

What is the "There were two kinds of issues section" in the intro trying to say? It makes no sense, is very confusingly worded and seems in opposition to the essense of the intro paragraphs. I vote for its removal or significant clean up. Zen Master 00:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concur. Kevin Baas | talk 00:35, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Note on exit polling

Exit polling is reliable and should be thought of as a check and balance against fraud (as I originally wrote in the article). That is why it is important to address the current election's "data irregularities" (assuming no fraud took place) because errors does NOT mean we should completely discount exit polling, instead we should figure out the irregularities to improve exit polling techniques for the next election (again, assuming no fraud took place this time). Completely discounting exit polling is an election fraudster's dream, but that does not mean to say exit polling can't be improved or that the data is not in fact wrong in this case. There should be more independent exit pollsters anyway, especially now that it has pointed to potential fraud ("they" will not make that mistake again [this time assuming there was fraud]) Zen Master 00:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concur. The argument that the exit poll was simply flawed, according to statistical analysis performed by a former MIT professor, has a 1 in 50,000 chance of being sound. Kevin Baas | talk 00:50, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Mainstream opinion appears to be split on this. Turn on the TV and you'll hear people arguing the point. Wikipedia is not a site for original research, so if people are split on it, all we do is report that people are split on it. --Delirium 02:03, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Don't think of it as "original research", I think of it as being potentially valid criticisms of official election results, it was only broken off of the election article(s) because of size. Zen Master 02:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it is original research. --Delirium 02:20, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

It is the only kind of research that can possibly exist on this topic right now. Kevin Baas | talk 02:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Then this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If there is no research to summarize, it does not belong in this encyclopedia. In any case, it's not even good original research. It just dumps correlations, which are useless. It makes no causal arguments and performs no rigorous analysis. --Delirium 02:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

While I do not personally believe this fits under "original research", I do believe that its inclusion in such a term is arguably possible. However, we are merely striving to collect together as much as possible evidence from other sources. The inclusion of material not being blasted on CNN now and then I think would be acceptable as long as all the material is incredibly sourced. Talk of deletion to me is a little dramatic. And I see you have a background in statistics from the manner in which you talk.

Causations cannot be proven, only highly probable correlations yield a belief in causation. We can only infer causation and thus we must use correlation in order to do so. Many of the external analysis in this page feature numbers of statistics extremely well outside the margin of error, thus if you find it to be poor research, please help us by telling us specifically what is wrong with the external analysis' usage of methodology or source data. --kizzle 04:07, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. It would be and was acceptable inside the election results articles in the "election controversy" sub-section, as such it only exists currently as its own article because of size. It's not "original research", it's the other half or balance of point of view of the election articles which present the official view of what happened on Nov 2nd. Zen Master 02:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Point 2: If an event is going on, whether the fact that it is going on is significant enough to justify an article, and whether there is sufficient material, is the pre-emininet criteria for having an article. From there, you do the best with what you got and don't complain. Kevin Baas | talk 02:51, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

"orphaned"

I have de-linked this article from most of the visible encyclopedia articles (leaving talk pages, etc.). I strongly feel that this article is going in a direction we at Wikipedia do not want to go. We're not a news agency, we aren't a primary source. We cite reliable sources, and if that means we have to wait, then we wait. We do not need to be on the cutting edge. We need to wait until other reliable groups have made their analysis. This article is currently just a laundry list of external links (most to partisan sources), along with a lot of number-crunching done by a few very resourceful Wikipedians. This is not how we should be doing this, though. We must wait for other groups to come to their own conclusions, and then summarize those findings.

I supported Kerry, and I do worry about irregularities, but we are not here to do the work of those who have stronger issues with the election. Please join me in sourcing this article properly. At a future date, we should merge a minimal section into the main election coverage. Please don't let Wikipedia become a soapbox. Thank you all. -- Netoholic @ 04:46, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I explained to netholic in #wikipedia on IRC earlier how and why he was wrong, but he failed to even address my counter points. He should be reported. Zen Master 04:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He also removed that whole section from the 2004 U.S. election in progress [2] - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why duplicate the same content all over? Centralize it here until RELIABLE sources say there is even a controversy. -- Netoholic @ 05:01, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Well, you blanked this page and removed that other section also. Call me suspicious, but that looks like you want it gone totally, and you don't want to centralise the info. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes Netoholic is suspicious, since others that supported him on IRC suggested the article be condensed and moved back to the election in progress article, not orphaned/deleted. He claims he orphaned it so it could be "worked on". His argument is full of contradictions and insults, I have an IRC chat log. Zen Master 05:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm a non-US citizen, so I didn't vote for anyone, and I think that there are better ways to rig an election than with the vote tallies. In other words, I don't think Bush rigged the election though electronic voting machines.

That said, this article is worth keeping. More people believe the stuff presented here than truly wacky crap like Time Cube. That mainstream news aren't reporting it does not make it original research. As far as I can tell, the article mostly consists of summerising various statistics that can be independently varified at numerous locations. How is that original research? If wikipedians were out doing polls, that would be original research. Colating already existing statistics is exactly what most articles that use statistics do.

The rest of it seems to be quoting web sites. So what if they're not CNN? There are a heck of a lot of articles on stuff that was not sources from major news organisations on here. Surely the NPOV means that we can't just accept major news sources as gospel!

I think this article is about seeing gremlins where none exist. That said, I think it's important this article does exist. Wikipedia aims to document human knowledge. Some people hold the view that the Republicans may have rigged the election. For that reason, we should document that view. Shane King 05:12, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic, if you think this article shouldn't exist, you can list it on VfD. If you think particular passages are inappropriate, you can discuss them here, as you've done. If you think the article is becoming a soapbox, you can make sure that the opposing POV is properly presented. You can use RfC to invite wider participation in making sure that all the contents are properly factual and NPOV. Deliberately making an article an orphan until it meets your personal standards is not an acceptable practice, though. I've been restoring the links, and I ask you to stop deleting them while we work on improving this article. JamesMLane 07:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page is more like a collective blog than an encylopaedia entry. It's interesting, and as I have a long-standing concern about vote rigging I'm all for it being discussed - but it just doesn't seem quite Wikipedia material. Maybe a different wiki is needed for this kind of in-progress news discussion, because having too much of it risks changing the character of Wikipedia as a an encyclopaedia, i.e. a source of established knowledge. Rd232 20:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have suggested we add the in progress current events header to the page. Also note Netoholic has only discussed things after being rebuked for making changes he knew many disagreed with, which harms his case because some of his concerns are valid. Check his history. Zen Master 20:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unreliable data

Can we hash this out on this page, rather than have an edit war? For instance, can we say how the data is unreliable? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unless anyone can provide verifiable sources for these items, they should be removed from the article. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Information updated.

Manipulation of exit poll data

I moved "Manipulation of exit poll data" here because it is a conclusion based on two un-verified screenshots hosted on "some dude's" ISP. Worthless. Source it verifiably, and I'll add it back myself. -- Netoholic @ 06:51, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

umm, what if whoever put that up is the only person who happened to take screenshots of CNN.com at those times, and they didn't alter it? are we just going to forget about it? Is there any viable way of finding it another way, maybe google or other search engine caches? --kizzle 06:58, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we on Wikipedia will forget about it if it cannot be verified. Leave speculation to other websites. It is not how we operate. -- Netoholic @ 07:01, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

It is sourced as coming from cnn.com, please prove that it did not. Also please work towards consensus building rather than acting unilaterally all the time. I deleted the redundant pasting of the content, no need for that, we have it in the history. Others note: he is removing links to this page on the other election pages. Zen Master 07:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Images can be faked. Find me a reliable source for that data. -- Netoholic @ 07:11, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

That's why it should be in the article, but clearly marked that it is an allegation that is in no way proven. That's the wikipedia way. We can verify that people are making the allegation, even if we can't verify the allegation is true. Shane King 07:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

prove that is was faked. Zen Master 07:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi guys... reality check for the new editors here... it is YOUR burden to verify the info. and we do not post unverifiable data. IF this is going to continue to be a fight, I will give up and list this on VfD. -- Netoholic @ 07:20, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I saw it with my own eyes. I'm sorry I don't have a time machine for you. It appears that the section should be modified, though, because apparently the manipulation of the exit poll data is standard procedure. Kevin Baas | talk 18:47, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Exit Polls vs. Machine Tallies, by State (9 States)

I moved this out of the article. Source again is an image file from a non-verified source, this time stored on ImageShack. -- Netoholic @ 07:11, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you stop pasting article data into the talk page, we have it in history. Zen Master 07:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, we all need to chill before A) Deleting the Article and putting up a Re-direct or B) removing pieces altogether and putting them somewhere else. Dialog first. That's why there's a talk page, man. --kizzle 07:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I agree with Netoholic on this one. Unless the wayback machine or something else can verify the screenshots, they are pretty worthless. I more object to not discussing this and having revert wars over it. I also object to people blanking the page. Truly, unless someone can give us more reliable data then this stuff shouldn't really be used. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But we can verify the screenshots exist, we just can't verify they're really of what they claim to be. Analogy time: we can't verify Jesus Christ is the son of God, so should we not mention that in the article? Of course not, we mention who thinks he's the son of God. Same here, we mention that there are some people who feel exit poll data was manipulated, without taking a stance whether it was or not. Shane King 07:28, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Shane, bad example. There is far more evidence that Jesus really existed than there is those screenshots were doctored or altered in some way! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good example: can you verify Jesus was the son of God? check netaholic's history, he is allergic to debate. Zen Master 07:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist. I'm saying is Jesus the son of God? You can't prove it, it doesn't mean you shouldn't mention some people believe he is. Likewise, I don't think we can prove those screenshots are real. It doesn't mean we shouldn't report on them if we can find people who believe they are real. See Time Cube for a more extreame and probably less controversial example. Nearly everyone believes it's a complete load of crap crank theory. Doesn't mean we don't report on it. We have a duty to report what people believe. We do not have a duty to determine whether what they believe is true, that would be original research! Shane King 07:47, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Look, you're talking about belief in a religious figure. Yes, that can't be proven. This is a different argument however: this is not the same as saying that facts taken from a screen capture of the CNN website, which is highly unreliable, should be included in this article. Either these screenshots or facts, or they aren't. It has nothing to do with my beliefs. Can we verify them or not? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're confusing my argument here. I'm acknowledging we can't verify them. But we can (and have) verified that some people believe them to be true, and should report them as such. I don't care whether you believe them to be true or not: all we need is for some people to believe them to be true, and we can report on those people's beliefs. Something like "Such and such people claim that CNN was involved in a coverup of the exit poll data, because blah blah blah". The reader is left to make up their own mind whether they feel the screenshots are credible, and if so, whether there are other explainations. That's our job here: report on things as they are, let the reader decide whether the screenshots are real or fake. As a reader, I believe they're probably real, but they also probably just show data entry or some other issues at CNN and nothing more sinister than that. I think other people should be allowed to make up their own minds like I have. Shane King 08:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Do we "have a duty to report what people believe"? We have to draw the line somewhere. We can't report every allegation in every blog. If an argument based on the screenshot is being advanced by only one person, or a handful of people (none of them experts), then I think we should exclude it. If it reaches some minimal (and admittedly ill-defined) level of attention, we can mention it in passing. If it becomes a substantial public issue, we can present it in more detail. On the present state of the evidence as presented on this Talk page, the point is too marginal to include. ShaneKing, if you think that "Such and such people" are talking about it, who are they? JamesMLane 08:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A google search for CNN "exit poll" cover up finds a lot of blogs. So I guess you could attribute them as "political bloggers". There's no reason people have to be experts: wikipedia is written from a NPOV, not an expert POV. I think it's worth including, as we seem to have a low standard for the number of people who hold views: once again, I point to Time Cube, which as far as I know, Gene Ray is the only person who seriously believes it. We include that (in a lot more detail than just passing, look at how long it is) because it gets internet attention, this issue is also getting internet attention, so we should include it. Remember that wikipedia is not paper, there's no reason to exclude something on the basis that it takes too much room. If the article gets to big, we can just split it off into smaller ones. Shane King 09:43, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I moved this back in, with more detailed source info. Removing it wholesale was, in my opinion, counter to the WikiWay.

Discrepancies Map

In this section, Image:2004 us discrepancy.gif has no source information for the data used to make this chart. As such, the whole section should be removed since it is using this information to draw it's conclusions. -- Netoholic @ 15:05, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I made the map, source for the vote count is wikipedia, and source for the edison/mitofsky exit polls for battleground states released just before nov. 3 1am fitting of the exit polls to the vote count. Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Protection

I have requested this page be protected. Far too many reverts. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The dubious tags are a better option. If they don't get reverted I'll remove my request. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

dubious sounds good to me. Zen Master 07:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Articles Dismissing Fraud Claims

Here are two articles dealing with many claims listed in this entry - [3] [4]. They're from Slate and Salon, neither of which can be considered conservative, and agree that much of the speculation currently circulating is baseless.

Also, could somebody please find what exit poll was used for the "Exit Polls vs. Machine Tallies, by State (9 States)" graphic? It isn't the initial leaked results, is it? Those would be from far too early in the day to predict anything. Also, how come only nine states are displayed in it? Giving all the information would be far better. Finally, the charts themselves seem slightly deceitful, as the scale on some of them ends at 60 and others at 55.

If anybody can find final, raw exit poll data, that would be very interesting to compare to the official count. I think that comparisons with the exit poll data from past elections would also be helpful.

Unless someone can find information on those two CNN images, it might be best to ignore them for now. We don't know what reasoning might be behind them. Futhermore, we can't even know that they're genuine. Anyone could take a screenshot from CNN and edit them so the numbers say something different. If the veracity of the screenshots can be confirmed, they should be considered. If not, regard them with suspicion. --Words to sell 09:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Supposedly no other states had exit poll vs results discrepancies, notice the exit poll discrepancy map above...

as far as scale goes, supposedly if exit polling techniques and data are both sound a greater than 3% error between exit polls and final results is statistically impossible. The problem starts because the exit polls are "weighted" after the fact to more conform which actual results (national vote sample size), which seems to me to defeat the purpose of exit polls.

Would finding the person that made those cnn.com screen shots and having them attest to creating them be enough? (i doubt it). I saw them linked off of democraticunderground.com before i saw them in this article. Those images are dubious at best yes, we could perhaps condense that section down to "there were accusations of after the fact exit poll data manipulation which was described as fixing an 'error', but no details on this error were provided". Ideally we need all versions of exit poll data, not just the final version (which is "weighted" for some strange reason). We also should have someone more knowledgeable fill out the exit poll article so we would have a small understanding of the math behind and reliability of exit polling. Zen Master 10:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article tag

I have tagged the article with what seems the most appropriate tag, {{Controversial3}}.

Controversial3 means:

• This topic contains controversial issues ...
• Some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality ...
• And some of which may be disputed.

This seems to describe the article perfectly. A large number of concerns have been agreed, and others remain still disputed.

Please sign below if you agree with this tag, in order that a consensus can be agreed and the article stops being revert/edited back and forth between no tag ("All OK"), "NPOV" and "totallydisputed". FT2 17:45, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

No, the "controversial" tag is one you just invented. It is watered down, and does not attract attention from people who watch for disputed articles. I dispute this article completely, and so I have placed the tag. Satisfy my concerns rather than watering them down. I insist that {{totallydisputed}} remain. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Do you dispute: "Electronic touch screen voting machines. The reliability and accuracy has not been established, and in most cases they were not designed with a paper trail or auditability in mind. Many computer scientists have claimed the potential of these machines to be tampered with was high, citing such possibilities as the machines being reprogrammed on election day. The election incident reporting system (EIRS (http://www.voteprotect.org)) has recieved many reports from voters and election officials of votes for Kerry being recorded as votes for Bush. The fact that the CEO of one electronic voting machine company was quoted in 2003 as saying he wanted to "deliver" the next election for Bush has further fuelled suspicions of fraud."? What about the section Expert testimony on quality of current voting machines - do you totally dispute this section? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you check the templates section, you'll find I have an active interest in the Wiki Templates generally - its not just invented for today. Templates are very important, they are a way that articles become correctly tagged with appropriate descriptions, and like articles themselves, if an appropriate tag does not yet exist, and the matter is a general one for any article, then it is at times appropriate to create it as a template. It's more important if a correct Template does not exist, for then people will use a less appropriate one, and in Wikipedia, less appropriate is equivalent to more misleading. In this case, Wikipedia will have many articles which are controversial, and where some parts are agreed and others not. It is inaccurate to label all parts of such article, as disputed or factually incorrect, when this may not be the case, the same as it is inappropriate to omit a suitable tag when parts are in dispute. We aim for neutrality here. The acid test is not "which template is the one I'm used to or the one I want to prop up my side". Its "which wording will most accurately describe the full position to a reader". With respect, Controversial3 does that correctly and accurately, totallydisputed is less correct and less accurate. Translation - focus on what serves wiki best, you should have no personal stance on this article, but be utterly neutral when choosing how to amend it. FT2 19:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Please Be On The Lookout For Major Unilateral Changes, historically by User:Netoholic

I object strongly to the above section title. I have asked that it be changed, since it implies wrong-doing on my part. I choose to leave it here as an example to others about how not to handle conflict. -- Netoholic @ 18:13, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

(To: Netoholic) - I am not even neccesarily against it, but when you go off and nominate images used on this election controversy page for deletion without mentioning it here on the talk page and even worse you requested a "speedy delete" when you are definitely aware there are numerous people that disagree with you tells me you may not understand or respect the wikipedia guidelines on controversy resolution. Here is your request: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#November_11 Even if the images are themselves unverifiable please give us time to find other sources for that data. Zen Master 16:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update, Netaholic errantly decided to move this to a user talk page. Netaholic: you fail to realize there are many other people that contribute to this article, it's not just "me vs you". It is relevant here so everyone can be on the look out for your unilateral actions, which moving a talk page discussion somewhere else is just one more example of. I modified the section title to allay any of your talk page appropriate concerns. Zen Master 17:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to flame me openly rather than address the serious concerns about this article, you are not going to make any friends here nor help your cause. -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to stop editing the comments of others. Besides, with the speed that comments are removed by yourself from your talk page is extraordinary! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You do have some valid concerns about the page but you are not going about them in a consensus building manner. Zen Master 17:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is it those that are most guilty, throw the stones. I invite you to re-read #Unreliable data and #Original research above. No concerns about the data's verifiability or reliability have been addressed. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

You were present on IRC when User:Neutrality and others said it was not original research. I stand by my history in this matter, how do you explain your history? Zen Master 18:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite a few of us on IRC said it was original research. Don't cast this as a "unilateral" thing. Rhobite 21:35, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Which is why discussing on IRC is a Bad Idea. If this was on the talk page there would be some form of transparency. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The unilateral part is deleting/redirecting without asking first. Discussion first of portions that constitute original research is fine. --kizzle 21:38, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes that and please note the original research claim is but one small piece of Netoholic's unilateral action puzzle. By all means check his history for details, what I say here can not possibly convince you as much as that can. NH never debated or took opposing viewpoints seriously, to the detriment of some of his concerns which admittedly may be valid. Zen Master 21:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reads carefully the article, reversions and history

Netaholic, I think that you need to pause and understand that the above is not a flame. Its not even a personal insult, except to the extent you feel upset at being singled out by its comments.

The first thing he says is "errantly" - that means without being asked he is crediting you that it was just a mistake and not accusing you of doing it deliberately. The rest of it is saying, a lot of people are working and interested in this article, so one shouldn't just make changes which affect it in a big way, without discussing. I don't think he was getting at you, you might re-read and see that it's not an attack.

If you've got real concerns, maybe you can list them below in a short numbered list, and lets quickly see if we can reach consensus, rather than "edit first, discuss later" which has characterised this article recently. FT2 17:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

(PS - Ive removed the name from the title of the section as that really does make him look bad, for the sake of less friction and fairness. Hope it helps consensus building) FT2 17:58, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've tried that in the sections above. Now users are re-adding those sections and dubious data and removing my disputed tags. That is why I have lost patience with this group. I have requested outside comment on this article, and if that does not work, then I will ask for deletion of this partisan junk. -- Netoholic @ 18:06, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Had you gone about your editing in a less abrasive manner (yes, that's right, "abrasive" — my vote against your adminship was right all along!) then this article would not be such a hot-bed of controversy. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect claims of "original research" or "dubious data"

Netaholic, describing matters that respected House Committee members saw fit to write not one but two letters to the GOA, where Federal Hearings have heard expert testimony as to the seriousness and potential for these issues, which can be found in the reputable printed national papers of many countries, where many thousands of individual American voters have stated they witnessed incidents that suggested the same personally, and where official data of the US government itself suggests an significant issue, as "partisan junk" suggests you are highly partial in this matter. Are you?

I have also looked up the guideline pages you cite. They state as follows:

1. "Original research" - says specifically this is not original research in any way. Not only the article does not propose any original idea, but also the guideline states specifically "However all of the above constitute acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape, for example if ... the ideas have become newsworthy [or] they have been repeatedly and independently documented..."
2. "Unreliable data" - does not appear to exist when I search for the link, and I have not found a sysop who knows this page. Please relink correctly if it does.

Guideline Wikipedia:Cite sources states of opinions being used within Wiki articles: "If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty. More than that, you should actively search for [but are not required to find] authoritative references to cite ... The main point is to help the reader * cite whatever you think will be most helpful. This applies when writing about opinions"

From this we conclude that Wiki's guides positively allow non-authoritative or partisan sources to be used (as they should for no source is guaranteed omniscient), and also explicitely allows citing of opinions. Provided their weaknesses if any are referred to in the article, the article itself will remain wiki-neutral. The only requirement is that the source, together with any clarification needed of its quality, is given, and with that I agree. Instead of reverting and complaining "its not neutral", why not ask yourself why users are re-adding things you delete, and then list here exactly the changes you want to see fixed so others can discuss rather than telling them "I'm doing this without consensus". FT2 18:32, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

The 'Opposing View' and discussion has been moved from the Vote page to the Talk page. At least it wasn't deleted. -- RyanFreisling

Might we aggree that it is Kerry not Gore in this election

In the section about Floridian tallies actually going down for the democratic contender, the candidate is given as "Gore". Whether this is sneaky vandalism (and, no, I will not check the history for it) or whether the whole quotation and/or section is a spoof, it probably had best be soonest mended by someone who gives a fig. -- Cimon 19:57, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I investigated and it turns out that quotation referred to the 2000 election, clarified it and changed header to "Recent historical election irregularities". Zen Master 20:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everything Contested

even the opening template to say this page is controversial is contested? sheesh. --kizzle 21:25, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there was a systematic attempt using every "wikipedia trick in the book" by User:Netoholic to undermine the quality of the page. Note some of the article's images were also submitted for deletion as well, links removed, sections removed, orphaning attempt, stuff "moved" to talk pages, etc etc etc, all without comment (until after the fact). Not to mention various other things and a steadfast refusal to engage in an honest debate over the issues. This actually worked against his cause, some of his concerns are valid.

I am going to switch out the Controversial3 header for totallydisputed, that is less disputed currently. Zen Master 21:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yup, it was too controversial :) FT2 01:32, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Arguing in the news articles section

I think this edit just says it all: [5]

Kevin baas is putting his own debate into the news articles section, attempting to discredit articles which don't fit his already-chosen theory: "Discusses a report that claims to outline problems with the early exit poll data wich "skewed" the data, but only makes one unsubstantiated hypothesis that would skew the poll: Repulicans were more wary of pollers. Also makes unsubstantiated ad hominem attack on internet users."

Rhobite 21:33, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any hope of this article becoming NPOV when users are making edits such as this one? Rhobite 21:45, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite, I attempted to go closer to neutral with my original posting of the two additional "debunk" articles. I changed the wording to "purporting to debunk" rather than "allegedly debunks" which reads too negatively, and not neutrally.

--Radioastro 21:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"allegedly" and "purporting to" are pretty much the same in my opinion, why the tense change as well? Zen Master 21:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pretty much the same, I just felt allegedly was more negative. I am truly striving for neutrality here. I do feel this is an important article, but I feel that it is highly biased still, and don't want to encourage negativity in any of the postings.

--Radioastro 22:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite, what I wrote was the truth. It takes about an elementary school education to know how to interpret poll numbers. there's nothing fancy or esoteric about it. and that unsubstantiated hypothesis is the only thing said in that article that could skew the data. I just don't want poeple to be misled. That article can be very misleading to a reader that doesn't employ critical thinking skills. Kevin Baas | talk 21:50, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Kevin... sorry, but who cares that you "don't want poeple to be misled". Your agenda on this issue is irrelevant. We write encyclopedia entires here, and hopefully they have the benefit of time and reflection. Immediacy is not a requirement, and your strong convictions don't matter in that regard. Go climb a soapbox somewhere else while we try and fix this article. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Since someone else returned your comment, I guess I'll have to waste my time responding to your invective. (BTW, I deleted it in accordance with the wikipedia policy on personal attacks.)

Firstly, I don't know who cares that I don't want to be misled. Probably the best way to find out is by doing a survey. But it's not really relevant who cares, as last time I checked, wikipedia had a policy of factual accuracy.

Secondly, I hope so to.

Thirdly, I don't have strong convictions.

Fourthly, I will not climb a soapbox somewhere, and next time phrase your suggestion as such and politely, rather than a command. I do not respond to commands, I respond to needs and polite requests.

Fifthly, I believe, and I think the majority will concur with me on this, that I have made more constructive edits than you have, so it seems that I am part of the "we" involved in the "fixing". Kevin Baas | talk 20:20, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

And lastly, I do not appreciate your invective. Kevin Baas | talk 20:20, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I'll ignore the sideways personal attack, and remind you simply to follow NPOV and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Conducting and interpreting a statistically valid poll is not, as you assume, child's play. These people invented exit polls, and when they admit flaws in their own results, I believe them over you. Rhobite 21:54, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

These people are bs'ing. What is "vetted and processed" supposed to mean? all they did was weight it by the vote count. you're putting subtle pov in because you're believing people's propaganda. Kevin Baas | talk 21:59, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Absolutely none of the suggestions above are the proper course to take in order to make this section, or this article better. Please read Wikipedia:Weasel words. -- Netoholic @ 21:55, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Substantial->32

This definitely should be cited. Is this just in one state or nationwide? is this counted from voteprotect.org logs? Kevin Baas | talk 22:11, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Until this is verified, I'm going to return it to the vague wording. Kevin Baas | talk 22:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

The article says 32. "Substantial" is not NPOV. If you have more cases, put in a cite, otherwise it's just editorializing.

I beg to differ. 32 is non-factual unless it is cited and supported.

"At least 32 have been reported" is more acceptable. Kevin Baas | talk 22:35, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the article that is sited to support the proposition: "The Election Protection Coalition received a total of 32 reports of touch-screen voters who selected one candidate only to have another show up on the summary screen, Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a coalition member."

There are other places that have probably recieved reports that have not been reported to the EPC. And the EIRS has been recieving about 350 reports a day. Kevin Baas | talk 22:43, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

A county breaks breaks the reported 1,000 incident barrier!

[6] make that two. [7] Broward and Miami-Dade are very close. [8]

For a previous debate over the deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy.

For archived discussion of this page, please see:

• Archive1 - November 5 2004 - November 9 2004
• Archive2 - November 9 2004 - November 12 2004
• Archive3 - November 12 2004 - November 17 2004

Done! I have re-organized much of this page into subcategories that we can use in the future in order to bring some order to this tangled talk page. If everyone likes this, we should stick with proposing new info and discussing current stuff in their separate categories. If I forgot to relocate any discussion that is current, please move it to the appropriate place or simply directly below the first 5 categories. Also, if everyone likes this, most all the rest of the page should be either archived or organized into the new format. --kizzle 08:39, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Also, if stuff under new has been added please add "- Added" to the title", same with any current passages that have been removed, "- Removed" in the title.

Discussions of current passages

Template (Do not edit)

Passage

" Bush so should have lost the election because there totally was voter fraud!"

Remedy: Remove / Change (Paste new like below if needed)

New Passage

" There are some who say there were data irregularities in the election results."

Discussion

Blah. --kizzle 20:59, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

---

Dubious sources

(please do not archive this section off the talk page)

This is a list of sources which should not be used in this article, as they cannot provide verifiable information.

They can be used, just not in an absolute context. We can say that people from those sources are making the claims they are making, we just can't report those claims as gospel truth. Shane King 03:55, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.ustogether.org (AKA TruthisBetter.org)

• It is trivally easy for anyone to write content for that website, and no verification of identity is required. Take a look at this if you need proof - http://www.ustogether.org/database/ObjSubPg.php?article_id=296&info_category=CHALLENGE . -- Netoholic @ 00:06, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
  • Who would ever trust a website that can be edited by anyone? Rhobite 00:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • The distinction is that Wikipedia can also be edited and verified by everyone. The ustogether data is just some unknown person's handywork. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
  • Well, looks like my page got removed (shocker) and my "account" revoked. Anyway, anyone can go here, register, and see how easy to get "published". -- Netoholic @ 09:17, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

http://www.buzzflash.com

• Indy media/mailing list which takes submissions from anyone. One current citation in our article refers to a "news analysis" written by "Tony" containing screenshots which have no timestamps and cannot be verified. -- Netoholic @ 07:34, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

http://www.democraticunderground.com

• Highly partisan, this site allows anonymous posting of opinion and information in its open forums. It itself should not be used as a primary source, nor linked cirectly from our main article page. -- Netoholic @ 02:40, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

http://michiganimc.org

Anyone can post an article to this website, without normal source requirements. Wanna take a look at my article [9]. -- Netoholic @ 23:00, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

ImageShack

• One image (Image:Exit poll small.jpg) is sourced as coming from http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif, an ImageShack location. ImageShack is a free image hosting website. and requires nor provides any source information. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

---

New information to be added/reviewed

Template (Do not edit)

Link: http://www.blah.com

Description: Cites conclusively there was no fraud.

Discussion

We need to add this as soon as possible! --kizzle 20:59, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

---

Commentary about exit poll accuracy

A good part of the suspicions of fraud in the election seems to hinge on the accuracy of the exit poll data. Doing a google search I came across this commentary by Howard Fienberg and Iain Murray. Quote:

Historically, exit polls have been more reliable than regular polls and the news media  treat them as gospel. 
But if the poll result is close, anyone who tells you that they know  who has won is lying - November 7, 2000

(veryfied with wayback machine: this page was up august 2002) Besides being definitely unbiased concerning the current election, it mentions several cases of exit polls that were quite of. Those might be worth investigating to get an idea of the circumstances under which exit polls can yield inaccurate results. --Icekiss 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I said "evidence", thats exactly what I meant. Nice one!

Wariness of exit poll reliability is also why I asked for a similar comparison of exit poll / popular vote for other recent or parallel elections too, to indicate how well they track in other elections for comparison. FT2 18:30, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Please see dnamining.com/exit for another analysis. I disagree with your characterization of the Caltech/MIT paper, although I agree it is not a good paper. -wjb(newbie)

Here is a relatively thorough explanation of how exit polls work and an evaluation of their reliability: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_polls_what.html Quote:

Despite the occasional controversies, exit polls remain among the most sophisticated
and reliable political surveys available. They will offer an unparalleled look at today's
voters in a way that would be impossible without quality survey data. Having said that,
they are still just random sample surveys, possessing the usual limitations plus some
that are unique to exit polling 

(anon, 18:00 Nov 15, 2004 PST)

Detailed NC election result irregularities analysis

Just ran across this, we should add some of it to the page somehow, sorry it's so big: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=45003&mesg_id=45003

(full text removed. Copyright status indicates this should not be copied here verbatim)

Netoholic, you must take great pleasure in messing with what other people post, and frankly in total your behavior is unacceptable by a member of the wikipedia community even though this specific incident isn't that big of a deal. Someone publically requesting comment and dissemination of their public research can not possibly be a copyvio, and I suspect the threshold for copyvio's on talk pages is much much much higher. Do you even have a partial understanding of copyright law? What about wikipedia's guidelines you love to errantly refer to? You are by far the most trollish user I've seen in my admittedly relatively short time here on wikipedia (this is not an insult, if you disagree then by all means request arbitration, I dare you).

I would appreciate it if in the future you would post your issues first and wait for responses, rather than acting unilaterally, especially in regard to other user's posts on talk pages. I would likely have removed the content myself if you asked nicely, I won't add the content back for now only because it is huge (if that was your real reason for removing it then you should have stated that reason from the beginning, in fact, you should always give your real reason for doing whatever you are doing [and you need more verbose, accurate checkin comments] rather than hide, as you do, behind obviously false accusations of wikipedia guideline violation). Zen Master 00:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Long Lines

I have this image:

from the Associated Press, published 2 November in an article on 'The Louisville Channel' web site. Are there PD objections to using the image, since it was published in mainstream press? File:2004longvoterlines.jpg

Now that I think about it, I believe AP only allows use for personal or non-commercial use, otherwise by permission only. Anyone with any other definitive info if Wikipedia is considered non-commercial for the purposes of AP content? -- RyanFreisling @ 20:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not one of the copyright mavens, but my understanding is that a "non-commercial" license isn't good enough. Wikipedia itself isn't commercial but all its contents must be available under the GFDL. That means that someone who wanted to could print it all out and sell it as a book. If AP would balk at that, we can't use the photo unless it's fair use, an issue to be strenuously avoided IMO. In real life, of course, no one will try to sell a book of this stuff. There are, however, online mirror sites that use Wikipedia's content for commercial purposes. JamesMLane 21:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia does allow non-GFDL material to be included. (How else would one responsibly present various POV expressed more recently than 1924?) However in the case of images, their copyright status must be documented -- in this case, it should be noted that this imsage is used under fair use, and that people interested in re-use should consult the creator for permission. -- llywrch 17:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If permission is explicitly required for reuse, fair use is not a legal resort (otherwise, non-commercial-use-only images wouldn't have been banned). Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John, I am not aware of the restriction you mention. I took a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights, & it fails to mention that restriciton either -- although it does mention our preference for libre images over encumbered ones. My point of consulting the original creator in this -- or any -- case was intended simply as a courtesy to that person. If that step alone would otherwise fobid the inclusion of an image in Wikipedia, then I guess we must needs be discourteous. -- llywrch 17:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Apparently fair use is permissible, though, so my original point is moot. Johnleemk | Talk 18:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incorporating a copyrighted image under "fair use" rationale is considered to be problematic because that doctrine from U.S. law doesn't apply everywhere. As a practical matter, we can get away with a certain amount of infringement while we're just online, but every time we do that, we add to the obstacles facing an eventual expansion to other media. (See User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0 for discussion of expansion ideas.) Furthermore, even under U.S. law, whether something actually is "fair use" is often not clear-cut. I think that one factor is how much of the original work is being used. In this instance an entire photograph is being used. Finally, as to this particular image, I don't know if it's very enlightening. There are reports of people waiting several hours to vote. Readers will have seen long lines before and can readily envision a couple dozen people standing along a sidewalk. If someone got up on top of a building and took a photo of a line looping once around the polling place and then stretching as far as one could see down the street, that might be a useful addition. JamesMLane 18:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This photo displays a line of people down the block, outside a polling place. I think it does adequately display a long line on Election day. Longer line? Aerial view? Those seem to be matters of degree. Folks? -- RyanFreisling @ 20:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the meaning of the term "effectively disenfranchised." What does this signify? How does one go about "effectively disenfranchising" voters? Long lines are a problem but as I understand it most states require polling places to stay open until all voters who were in line at the closing time, have voted. The word "effectively" implies equivalence, something that we don't have here. Rhobite 20:48, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

It is also hypothesized that long lines at urban polling places would negatively effect turnout for Kerry voters. Kevin implied that this is an irrefutable logical proof and deleted the word "hypothesized," but there are a few hidden premises in that argument. This is someone's opinion, and it shouldn't be presented as fact. Rhobite 20:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

What is the maximum gain (among the blue state according to this map) of exit poll discrepancy in kerry's favor? Are there pre election day polls that agree or disagree with blue state (according to this map) discrepancies? What are the odds of all the irregularity being for kerry? Zen Master 22:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

max. kerry gain (kerry higher in vote than poll): kerry, 2.31% max. bush:vermount, 5.07% Kevin Baas | talk 23:09, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Also you can grab the excel file and look at it yourself. (if you do, could you double check the vote-count?) Kevin Baas | talk 23:11, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

- *it is more likely that more people left the line throughout the day than were in the line when the polls close. lower voter turnout numbers correlate with counties with a higher rate of machine shortages and long lines. + - *a implies b implies c (not "is hypothesized") see logic. Kevin Baas | talk 22:56, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

"see logic," how snide. Kevin, your cocktail-napkin reasoning and shoddy Excel work are not a substitute for real research. You have no idea whether long lines caused Democrats and Republicans to leave in equal numbers. You don't know what was going through voters' heads, you don't know how many people left, and you don't know what their party affiliation was. Rhobite 23:01, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

All but the last you said is correct, and i am not making any assumptions but the last: if you would stop deleting high population=high democratic-republican ratio, high population + machine shortage = long lines, therefore, highly democratic long lines. Logic, yes. I'm sorry for being so snide. I'm expecting you to try to argue against this, which is, in my personal "opinion", yes (separate from the logic and the empirical facts), quite ridiculous. Kevin Baas | talk 23:05, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

First off, a higher proportion of registered Republicans vote than Democrats. Second, more Democrats cross party lines than vice versa. Third, you're assuming that the same percentage of Democrats and Republicans left long lines. It could be the case that one group or the other was more motivated to vote. And there is no way to tell how many intended voters left. Any one of these observations is enough to show that it is not logically proven that long lines affected the Kerry vote negatively. I accept your apology. Rhobite 23:13, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Now you're "hypothesizing" and throwing out irrelevant, ambiguous, and unsubstantiated statements. It doesn't appear like this a discussion is going anywhere. Kevin Baas | talk 23:47, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Please help me understand, why were a number of new content and source just deleted by Rhobite in the main page? -- RyanFreisling

New Discrepencies Map

This page has requires using the history to read it, I've never encountered that before. Anyways, I have a new map, of discrepancies as of nov.3 12:22am, from this source (and the updated excel file is uploaded too, if anyone wants it)

Kevin Baas | talk 22:40, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

What is the maximum gain (among the blue states according to this map) of exit poll discrepancy in kerry's favor? Are there pre election day polls that agree or disagree with blue state (according to this map) discrepancies? What are the odds of all the irregularities in kerry's favor? Is this based off of final exit poll data or non "weighted"? Zen Master 23:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, this isn't how talk pages are normally used and this kind of break from the norm should be discussed first. I feel people should be free to create threads here as they wish, and you shouldn't archive discussions that were started literally minutes ago. I moved all of today's discussions back to this main talk page, where they belong. Rhobite 22:55, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Kevin, please stop using sources which anyone can post an article to? Wanna take a look at my article [10]. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

If you don't think like wikis or forums, don't write in them. Kevin Baas | talk 23:01, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, nor does it use source which can not be independantly verified by our readers. It seems I am not the one who is writing in the wrong place. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I agree with you on all but the last point. Kevin Baas | talk 23:44, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Actually Netoholic, that is the essence of your misunderstanding, wikipedia IS a discussion formum for resolving article dispute, please learn. Zen Master 00:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Greg Palast Info

With all of this alleged dependence on weblogs, & unverifiable internet sources (I'm using weasel words here because I haven't taken the time to trace every source quoted in the article), why hasn't anyone bothered to quote or cite Greg Palast, an investigative reporter who writes for the BBC & the Guardian? AFAIK, he's the prime source for material on this topic -- & I remember hearing him on Air America Radio not only set forth the evidence for incidents in both states on 3 November, but he also claimed that there were irregularities in New Mexico that were suppressed by the "So-Called Liberal Media". Some of his writings can be found on his website. -- llywrch 18:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good info, it should be added. We've gotten bogged down just trying to keep the page alive. There was a systematic effort to damage and delay improvement of the page by people uniterested in debate through: removing links to the page, listing images for deletion, claiming parts/all of it violate wikipedia policy but not debating detailed counter arguements (acting unilaterally in the belief the page is "all wrong"), listing custom header for deletion, vandalism attacks, revert wars and the VfD which is hopefully the last trick in the people that are against the article's bag. Not to mention the more standard: lengthy talk page discussions, added text POV [in both direction] problems, structure and organizational disagreements, title disagreement and changes, etc. Zen Master 18:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Franklin County Machine Problems

• Machine problems lead to recount in Franklin county[11]

Ohio county-level historical turnout

I have gathered historical ohio country turnout levels for presidential election years for 2004, 2000, 1996 & 1992, and put it in an excel file. However, I couldn't find the data for registration by county for 1992, so I had to infer by the formula { x[n] = r1996[n] - (r2004[n] - r1996[n]) / 2; mult = r1192_total / sum(x, 1...n); r1992[n] = x[n] * mult }. I noticed, however, that the registered voters in the county-level voter turnout files disagree with those in the voter turnout history file. In any case, i did a few calculations and found that counties with long lines had lower voter turnout this year than the normally do. Kevin Baas | talk 20:11, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

In cuyahoga county, county vs. state voter turnout, cuyahoga stayed near it's avg. of 4% worse than state for 04,00,96, & 92.

Franklin county, in 92 (remember, inferred voter reg this year.), did 7.24% better than avg, then in 96 did 3.37% worse than avg, 00 did 2.6% worse, but in 04 did 9.96% worse. This is 9.32% worse than Franklin's average. Kevin Baas | talk 20:43, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Ya, doing some more spreadsheat calculations, franklin county is looking more suspicious than cuyahoga. Kevin Baas | talk 22:14, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

I just read that franklin had a slew of new registrations this year, looked at the spreadsheet, and decided to re-infer the '92 figures for franklin without using the '04 figures for franklin. The multiplier factor shifted closer to one (which means the results are more expected), and the stats for franklin make more sense now: in '92, franklin had only 0.6% worse voter turnout than the state, and the avg. of '92, '96, & '00 is 2.18%. (franklin is 10.6% of the electorate in Ohio, which has 7,979,639 registered voters.)Kevin Baas | talk 22:35, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Sequoia Gives Away E Vote Machines in Swing State

We should add this info but I am not certain how and where. Basically an electronic vote machine company gave 4 years free to Reno Nevada just prior to the election in August: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04490.html

Zen Master 10:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voter turnout findings

I looked at voter turnout as a ratio of voters this election to registered voters last election (because of the big registration drive this year), and found for each county the %diff between its (modified) voter turnout and the rest of the state.

Then I found for each county the %diff between its (normal) avg voter turnout for 92, 96, & 00, and the rest of the state.

Looking at the difference, firstly Delaware and Warren really stand out as having much higher voter turnout. but avg. they high, and were much higher in other years, too.

Looking at Franklin and Cuyahoga, Franklin actually did good. (+4.153%) (thou it does bad if you use 04 registrations), while Cuyahoga did bad (-4.867%). Kevin Baas | talk 20:42, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Added section on public hearings under 'Official Investigations'. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the county scale, if the voters in Ohio that turned out would have voted the way they have an avg. for the past three elections, Kerry would have won Ohio by 67,923 votes or 50.61%. Kevin Baas | talk 22:44, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

In the unofficial 2004 vote count, Kerry lost by 136,483 votes, with only 48.75% of the votes. Kevin Baas | talk 22:48, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

That difference is not statistically significant. Kevin Baas | talk 22:57, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

On the county scale (perhaps "resolution" is a better term"), democratic turnout was 0.90% better than the avg. of the last three pres. elections, while republican turnout was 0.78% better. Kevin Baas | talk 23:10, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

On the county resolution, democratic turnout was 6.37% better than last election, while republican turnout was 6.04% better. (using 00, 96, & 92 to determine dem-rep distr.) Kevin Baas | talk 19:47, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

new map:Hybrid us map

Kevin Baas | talk 21:47, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Opps, I compensated the wrong way. Sorry. Here's the real map. According to the a variance of the discrepancy between the compensated polls and the vote counts for the non-BBV states, there is a 22.5% chance the poll is off by enough for Bush to have won Ohio (and a 50% chance that it was off in that direction), and a 47.5% chance that it was off enough for Kerry to have won Florida (and a 50% chance that it was off in that direction), giving Kerry a 91.4% chance of victory. Kevin Baas | talk 06:55, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

By the same logic, if we use instead the average of the vote count and the exit polls for the BBV states (meet halfway), Kerry is given a 55.5% chance of victory.

And if we give the vote-count a 50% chance of being perfectly accurate, and a 50% chance of being meaningless, that gives Kerry a 91.4%/2=45.7% chance of victory. Kevin Baas | talk 07:18, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Opps, those figures are with New Hampshire in the BBW states. (I am not doing well with clerical perception lately!) Those figures are interesting as well, and with New Hampshire included in the bias compensation, the figures are pretty close. If people think any of this should be in the article, or if the data is really important to someone, I can recalculate.

Digest of News Sources

I've scraped a list of sources from here , and it currently resides at User:RyanFreisling/SourceDigest. Take a look! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Diebold's Registered Democrat

Removed Diebold’s election-systems division is run by a registered Democrat" and source URL [12], which points to an article on Diebold's site [13] which merely repeats the statement without naming the Democrat. if this passage refers to Radke, it can be re-insered and edited properly. Source? -- RyanFreisling @ 05:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dixiecrat

I made a correction. The 'dixiecrat' phenomenon is not part of the Caltech study. It is a valid issue, and belongs in the document, but not in that section. -- RyanFreisling @ 11:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added it to the Intro Section -- RyanFreisling @ 11:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Possible information for inclusion

My friend Jeff got these emailed to him, and posted them on his site. [14]

(i deleted the section i just made before, as zen pointed out that we already have that link.) Kevin Baas | talk 20:27, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

historical election data [15]

and late pre-1am exit poll listing of all states with timestamps! [16] Kevin Baas | talk 20:35, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Votergate Movie [17], [18] -- RyanFreisling @ 04:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Detailed NC election result irregularities analysis

Just ran across this, we should add some of it to the page somehow, sorry it's so big: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=45003&mesg_id=45003

(full text removed. Copyright status indicates this should not be copied here verbatim)

Netoholic, you must take great pleasure in messing with what other people post, and frankly in total your behavior is unacceptable by a member of the wikipedia community even though this specific incident isn't that big of a deal. Someone publically requesting comment and dissemination of their public research can not possibly be a copyvio, and I suspect the threshold for copyvio's on talk pages is much much much higher. Do you even have a partial understanding of copyright law? What about wikipedia's guidelines you love to errantly refer to? You are by far the most trollish user I've seen in my admittedly relatively short time here on wikipedia (this is not an insult, if you disagree then by all means request arbitration, I dare you).

I would appreciate it if in the future you would post your issues first and wait for responses, rather than acting unilaterally, especially in regard to other user's posts on talk pages. I would likely have removed the content myself if you asked nicely, I won't add the content back for now only because it is huge (if that was your real reason for removing it then you should have stated that reason from the beginning, in fact, you should always give your real reason for doing whatever you are doing [and you need more verbose, accurate checkin comments] rather than hide, as you do, behind obviously false accusations of wikipedia guideline violation). Zen Master 00:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

still more info

• Overzealous reading list. [19]
• News, news news... [20] [21]

I don't see a problem with putting news sources like the reading list in the article. They contain lists of articles from verified sources. I'd say add them to the in the news section, or the 'other' section (since it's a digest). Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 23:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Active polls

Naming

(archived due to name change)

Sub-pages

1. The page should be maintained as one for the time-being

1. kizzle 22:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
2. Schnee 22:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Zen Master 23:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. If the article gets too long, daughter articles are a better solution than sub-pages. JamesMLane 22:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. The page should have separate pages that go in-depth about certain states (such as 2004_U.S._Election_voting_controversies,_Florida & 2004_U.S._Election_voting_controversies,_Ohio)

1. Kevin Baas | talk 22:53, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
2. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of article layout/organization

Radiastro's Merge Proposal

Significant portions of this article relate directly only to electronic voting and should be moved there. This would significantly reduce the size of this page, and allow the information pertaining directly to the 2004 Election controversies be covered here. Much of the background research provided here does not belong. In addition, the POV of what remains truly needs to be cleaned up. --Radioastro 22:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is actually a good idea, the detailed sections on voting machines can possibly be moved to the electronic voting article, including most if not all of the expert testimony. Though many of the issues do relate to non electronic voting machines. Criticisms of Diebold and brief mentions of the potential for fraud from lack of paper trail or auditability etc are relevant and should be left in this article. Zen Master 23:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What do others think?

Then what would happen after 2006 or 2008? The article on electronic voting couldn't accommodate this level of detail about every election. It should be a general overview of the subject. It can refer to disputes in particular places in particular years, but only in summary fashion to illustrate a point. The better solution would be to move a lot of this detail to a new article along the lines of 2004 U.S. election electronic voting controversies. The current article would cover other kinds of voting controversies, and would include a summary of the EVM issues, with of course a link to the new article. JamesMLane 02:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There must have been some confusion, that is not what I meant, anything specific to a particular election would not be appropriate in the electronic voting article, I agree. Just the "expert testimony" and the specific criticisms of electrionic voting machine companies and technology sections could be mostly moved there, nothing more than that. Zen Master 17:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to Split (see polls)

James proposed that we split the article into 2, one for data irregularities, one for all other election controversies, what do people think and exactly where should the dividing line be? I guess almost all of the voting machine info should stay in the irregularities article as it's related, but maybe not. There may be some overlap between the articles. Zen Master 05:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I definitely agree, and I think the voting machine info should go in the other one, with only data irregularities in its own article. (Of course, that article itself should only have previously-published data irregularities, not primary research.) --Delirium 07:30, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I was assuming that the voting machine stuff would stay here, with a summary and wikilink in the new article. The point about the data irregularities is that they support a hypothesis of machine malfunction or tampering, isn't it?

Not much would be moved -- a couple of the items in the "Examples of issues" list, which, we hope, would then get amplified. I envision a less mathematical treatment of issues of long lines and discriminatory challenges, so maybe those subjects could be addressed in each article but in a different way. The main overlap would probably be in duplicating (as opposed to moving) some of the information about responses and actions. For example, Nader's request for a recount in New Hampshire might belong in both articles.

I wouldn't move any of the "In the news" section. Particular events that relate to issues other than machines can more readily be covered in context (that is, discuss all the voter registration events in the registration section). For an article that will cover multiple subjects, a day-by-day chronology of the development of the disputes isn't the right way to go, in my opinion. This is an encyclopedia article, not a newsfeed. I would also like to be very cautious about collecting external links. Trying to link to every group that's working on absentee ballots plus every group that's working on racial discrimination plus every group working on every other issue isn't practical.

In fact, as I look at this article now, I'm surprised to find that the split I have in mind won't affect it as much as I'd thought. I'm guessing that other editors have experienced what I did -- that the extensive mathematical analysis of exit polls, etc. had the practical (though unintended) effect of discouraging the additon of things like the Democratic voter registration forms in Nevada that were thrown out, or the military personnel who were supposed to cast absentee votes by fax or email, losing their secrecy. The result is that most of what should be in the new article hasn't been written yet.

And in the new article, all headings will be sentence case! JamesMLane 07:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added the current New Mexico incident (a single rural county has missed the provisional ballot count deadline). I could not find evidence of it occurring before. Do others agree that validates the situation as a noteworthy Election irregularity of public record? Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, it seems pretty low-level. They're slow at counting. There's no reason to suspect something dastardly going on (no reporters excluded from the premises or anything like that). There's no reason to suspect that this particular glitch might result in undercounting any group, or in any inaccuracy in the final count, or in a benefit to any candidate. You're right that they've missed a deadline. My inclination, though, is that a mere missed deadline with no credible tie to any wider implications is below the threshold of significance for inclusion. JamesMLane 10:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We need to split part of page to new article "Criticisms of electronic voting machines"

The article is getting too big, too redundant and the organization unwieldy, I propose we create a new wikipedia article to the effect of "Criticisms of voting machines" or "Criticisms of Diebold voting machines" or "Criticisms of electonic voting machines" or all of the above. With the titles to be decided by whoever actually creates those pages. Note: those articles would be general/historical criticisms and not cover the 2004 election, that stuff would still belong in this article. Zen Master 23:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

General material about electronic voting machines could go to the existing electronic voting. That would leave behind anything about non-electronic voting machines, but that's not a problem. What's making the article unwieldy is the huge amount of information that relates specifically to electronic voting machines in the 2004 election. I think that's what should be spun off to a daughter article. JamesMLane 23:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the direction of this page

(dormant? related to split/edit discussion?)

we have successfully added 175KB in 3 days to a talk page, which is 7 times the guideline max for an article itself... this discussion is getting us nowhere, as any valid discussion is within minutes buried by new additions. we now have what looks like at least 20 active editors working on this page. Obviously the proposal for organization which I made wasn't taken too seriously, but some level of organization needs to be applied to this page, there are simply too many cooks in the kitchen for us to keep posting randomly in the manner we have been doing, IMHO. --kizzle 03:29, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Direction? There isn't. This page has turned into a blog, not an article. Attempts to add counter-arguments which say this "panic" is unfounded are removed. This article is still as it was two days ago - a collection of links, and a few pretty graphs. Wikipedia's credibility is being injured by this article. I would feel so much better if Zen-master, Kevin bass, or FT2 showed any indication that they are willing to also include the opposite view, and give it equal consideration. No, strike that, the viewpoint that there is no over-riding controversy should be given more space in the article, since mainstream sources hold that view, and partisan websites and blogs seem to be the only ones holding the conspiracy theory.

As a community, I think we have a responsibility to balance all views. If Zen-master, Kevin bass, or FT2 don't want to write sections which put this information in perspective, then they should at least give the article a break and let some other editors get in there. I would propose that we pick one day, and for 24 hours ask those editors to take a break from the article. If, as they say, the information stands on its own, then the article will too without their ever-presence. -- Netoholic @ 07:22, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

I don't see anyone keeping valid NPOV information from being entered into the page, except those who are doing blanket wipes, etc... but there are multiple examples of varying controversies and irregularities in the election, from miscounts to missing votes, from the delays in New Mexico (counting continues, though a Bush win is considered a 'lock', etc. to the 6 Congressmen who have petitioned the GAO to investigate, to the 35000+ name petition imploring Congress to do so, to the multiple domestic and internationally-funded observation (with differing conclusions) into the integrity of the election. Netoholic, this again is spurious, and a rehash. What percent of their effort could have been put into updating the page - not into this discourse - where we could be constructing a better page in NPOV together? --RyanFreisling 07:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netholic's efforts notwithstanding, the increasing (not decreasing) number of reputable reports, under ruthless NPOV application, will continue to better inform this document. What is your next approach to stifle this process? --RyanFreisling 07:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Responding to Netoholic: Please point out where i have violated NPOV with my contributions to the page, my edits always tend toward POV clean up. Please stop inventing non-issues just because your POV tells u the page "is all wrong". You assume I think and act like you but that is false. Zen Master 07:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zen - These edits show insertion of your POV, or removal of other's information which tries to describe the opposite view. -- [22] [23] [24] [25]. Trust me, on the article, FT2 and Kevin bass do this a lot more. Your problem is a general misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, and tendency toward knee-jerk reverts with no explanation nor consideration that others hold opposite views. -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

• First link: me removing "highly unlikely" POV text, it definitely needed clean up, if you honestly believe some of that should have remained we can debate it here or in new talk section
• Second link: a completely justified edit, maybe you didn't notice no information was lost? Everyone approves of the new organization. Please explain your issues with this edit.
• Third link: added balance of POV between exit polling company and critics. certainly better and more informational than what was there previously. explain your problem with it.
• Fourth link: you are defending text that emphasized "conspiracy nuts"? The change I made there corresponds to the format in that section. please explain.

If you ever disagree with my edits feel free to discuss them on talk pages or chat, i never claimed i was perfect, just that I believe in NPOV. You seem to believe you are justified in doing anything and everything detrimental to a page when you are convinced it violates NPOV or you disagere with its POV (talk page exists for exactly that reason). At some point can we go over your multiple deletion without comment attempts and unilateral actions? Zen Master 08:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page has indeed turned into a blog and in my eyes, as a new visitor, damages the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. This is not an encyclopedia article.

What I actually meant was this talk page, there needs to be some organization to it, as the information being added/debated is tremendous. We don't need to use the templates, but we need to separate this talk page into "proposed passages" "current passages" and "other", or something like that, and make sure we quote verbatim the place that needs discussion, cause keeping up with the talk on this page is highly time-intensive. --kizzle 09:16, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Editing the introduction

I've rewritten the first paragraph (now two). I thought it important to distinguish two broad classes of controversy: Even some sources that dismiss the idea that Kerry really won, like the New York Times, have been critical of many aspects of the process (inconsistent rules from one state to another, the difficulties many people encountered in registering and voting, etc.). Another change is that "the 2004 election" isn't the same as "the 2004 presidential election". The rewrite includes wikilinks to the articles on the Congressional elections as well. For example, the charges based on analysis of the absentee ballots in North Carolina referred to the votes for the Senate seat as well as the presidential race.

What's now the third paragraph consists of opposing quotations about exit polls, with the context not well explained. Exit polls are only one issue here. To help get the reader into the overall picture more quickly, I think those quotations should be moved down to where exit polls are discussed in more detail. The rest of the introduction should list the major issues. I think the current narrative style is too pokey ("There were reports.... There were also reports.... There may have been.... Another issue is...."). It would work better to use the bullet style. The best way to give the reader a quick overview would be to combine the current paragraph with the "Examples of issues" section but to list issues without all the detail. That would come in the body of the article as each subject was developed. For example, the first sentence ("There were reports of problems with and controversy over electronic and optical-scan voting machines.") and the first two bullet points under "Examples" could all be replaced with the single bullet point "Accuracy and reliability of voting machines, especially those employing electronic voting methods".

The way it stands now, I think the article starts right out bombarding the reader with too much detail. People who've been deeply involved in editing this article, and who have immersed themselves in the torrent of what's been in the media on this subject, have to keep in mind the problem of making the material accessible to people who don't have that background. JamesMLane 06:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I edited it as well, a bit more detail describing the groups involved in the issues. Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 06:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm leery of more detail in the intro -- my first impulse in writing was to name the presidential candidates who've raised questions (Nader, Badnarik and Cobb, AFAIK), but I decided that should come later on. Nevertheless, the only one of your edits I take serious exception to is the phrase "It has been likewise asserted that...." This blurs the distinction between, on the one hand, the people saying that Kerry was robbed, and, on the other hand, the larger number who think Bush won legitimately but that there's a lot about elections that needs improving. As I mentioned, the New York Times is in the latter category; see [26] for a listing of the Times articles and editorials on the subject (may require free registration). It's not POV to characterize people as "critics" if they say that election problems gave the Presidency to the wrong guy. That's a criticism, and a significantly sharper one than saying that lines were too long or different states' standards too disparate. JamesMLane 07:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that Democrats are the complainants because that's an assumption as to the political beliefs of the range of individuals involved. The Green and Libertarian candidates are about to request a recount, for example. Those who question the irregularities are not Democrats 1:1. Lemme think about 'critics'.

Okay, I know what I think about 'critics'. The outcome of the election is not the only motivating factor for those 'pressing the issue' (as i think it reads). If these irregularities include violations of the Law, they are not critics of the outcome, but whistleblowers, investigators, etc. etc. Critics implies a value judgement about the 'proper' outcome of the election. If truly objective, the objections could be on an incident-by-incident basis.-- RyanFreisling @ 08:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your point about "critics". It doesn't say anything about their motivation. Some critics are in the first category described in the text: They think there were screwups (irregularities, illegalities, whatever) that should be exposed. They may think that even exposing all those points wouldn't shift the election to Kerry. Some of them may even prefer Bush, but feel duty-bound to work for fair elections, let the chips fall where they may. But I used "critics" for the second category, the people who think that the official counts produced the wrong result -- not wrong in the sense that re-(s)electing Bush will be disastrous for the country, but wrong in the sense that Bush didn't legitimately win. I don't see a problem with calling those people "critics". JamesMLane

(Hope you don't mind me inserting this here between your comments) I think it's that there are (as an example) those who are concerned about possible wrongdoing, and who are working to prosecute those incidents. They aren't 'critics'. They're not criticizing the process. They're working to determine if laws were broken. I think 'critics' is therefore incomplete. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) RyanFreisling

You're right that some people are concerned about possible wrongdoing. The sentence refers, however, to other people, who've gone beyond that. At this point there's a significant body of opinion that says there definitely was wrongdoing (which, for the more charitable among them, might include foulups arising from incompetence as well as thefts arising from dishonesty). The NPOV policy permits (in fact, requires) the reporting of that POV. People holding that view qualify as "critics". Still, if you have a problem with the word, we can avoid it. What about "More controversial was the charge that these issues might have affected the reported outcome...."? The key, to my mind, is to make clear that there are some people calling for improvements who don't sign on to the view that Kerry really won. JamesMLane 11:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that the idea that an election can be overturned if vote counts are revised due to irregularity is more controversial than any other issue around the irregularities. It's a consequence of the rules of the election. Are you saying that the idea that there were some irregularities, etc. is one thing, but the idea that they would impact the election is more controversial? If so, that seems like unnecessary gymnastics. Did I understand you correctly? -- RyanFreisling @ 12:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for the concession, upon reflection, I think that, instead of "Democrats", I should have written "Some of Kerry's supporters criticized him for doing so...." You're right that some Greens, Libertarians, etc. think there were improprieties. The specific point I had in mind here, though, was that some people who supported Kerry felt let down by his concession. Anyway, the generic "Some", without elaboration, isn't inaccurate, so perhaps that's the best way to go, at least for now. JamesMLane 08:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not like the introduction in its current form, especially the added text. The version after I created the introduction section header was better than current in my opinion, it's all over the place now and clarity is rather poor. May clean up or mostly revert now. Zen Master 09:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having reread what you reverted to, I still think it's less accurate and less less clear, especially to a reader coming to this subject with no background. You said in one of your edit summaries that the "irregularities" is the essence of the issue. In the context of the text you reverted to, where it's "data irregularities", the term has for me the connotation of referring primarily to discrepancies between exit poll results and the official counts. If people are improperly prevented from registering, that doesn't seem like a "data irregularity". In terms of the effects of the controversy arising from this election, though, I think changes in voter registration rules are a quite possible outcome.

Right now the parts of this article dealing with electronic voting, and the reasons to suspect it, have received extensive attention compared with all the other issues. I don't blame people for working on what interests them. I just don't think that the phrase "data irregularities" has to be trotted out in the very first sentence. We need to give more recognition to the substantial body of opinion that dismisses all these maps and alleged statistical analyses with a snort of derision, but says that, for example, many of the states have completely messed up their conduct of elections, and the federal government should take over, or at least assume a much more active role in setting and enforcing uniform national standards. This argument arises from concerns about registration, absentee ballots, long lines, etc., as well as about the secret software for the machines. JamesMLane 11:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The introduction that Zen Master reverted to, along with the "Examples of issues" section, has these problems, IMO:

1. Not setting the overall context of the controversies (too much focus on the EVM issue).

2. Jumping right into giving detailed evidence, which should be deferred to the appropriate sections of the article.

3. Not NPOV because of the heavy preponderance of evidence for one side in this initial portion. Of course, balancing it with countervailing evidence would only exacerbate the first two problems.

See generally Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Establish context about how an article should begin.

Along the lines of this comment and those I made earlier, I've written a proposed new lead. It would replace the current "Introduction" and "Examples of issues" section. As the lead section, it wouldn't need a heading. The major change is to set the context by identifying the issues, without trying to elaborate on the supporting (or opposing) evidence. I did the first part of this change, but Zen Master reverted. Rather than get into an edit war, I'm putting the full version at User:JamesMLane/2004 U.S. election voting controversies - lead. Changes to this draft that are consistent with its overall approach can be made directly at User:JamesMLane/2004 U.S. election voting controversies - lead and/or discussed at User talk:JamesMLane/2004 U.S. election voting controversies - lead. Comments about which of the two overall approaches is better should go here (i.e., the main article's talk page), where they'll be more accessible to everyone. JamesMLane 12:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The current version reads much better, has less POV problems, and is less sloppy than before but there is definitely more work that needs doing. We mention in the introduction the best counter analysis there is against the entire article, I don't see how we can any more POV balanced than that?? I agree with you about the examples of issues section, that needs major overhauling. I combined the list of complaints into that list of issues section to eliminate redundancy, now we need to make a pass at POV cleanup there.

The way I look at the page is the entire article is a counter criticism of official election results, this article is the balance of POV that the other election aticles lack. Though, having said that, there are definitely some areas that need clean up. The article jumps right in and gives evidence so people are not quick to say "this article does not belong on wikipedia", remember most of the people that edit the page have also had to spend much effort just keeping the page alive and defending its existence. Because of that such a tone is to be expected in the article and is certainly not a violation of wikipedia policy (if it is please reference the violation).

Also, please list specific problems you have with the article, referring to guidelines without citing specific problems on the page as you did was not helpful. We should focus on the specifics. Zen Master 14:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update: I made some detailed comments about James' proposed intro text below it here User:JamesMLane/2004 U.S. election voting controversies - lead Zen Master 15:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've found it more helpful in other articles to have the main "sandbox" page consist only of the specific article text that's being considered, while the normal process of discussion occurs on the sandbox's talk page. Therefore, I've moved Zen Master's detailed comments to User talk:JamesMLane/2004 U.S. election voting controversies - lead and will answer them there. JamesMLane 17:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response to Zen Master's more general comments above:

• I agree that your combination of the "Examples of issues" and "List of complaints" sections was a good idea. We need to go further and have one quick introductory list that gives the overview of the scope of the entire post-election controversy.
• I definitely do not agree with the idea that this article should somehow balance a POV in other articles. If other articles are biased, they should be fixed. Not every reader will come here as well. Unfortunately, though, the officially reported results are the operative ones unless and until they're reversed (administratively or by a court). It's not bias for the articles on the elections to report those results in detail, while giving only a quick summary and wikilink to the criticisms.
• It follows from the foregoing that this article should be as NPOV as possible. It should fairly present the different criticisms, with their supporting evidence, but should also fairly present the opposing positions, with their supporting evidence.
• Let's not overreact to the VfD listing. I've described the listing as "foolish". I understand the tendency you mention to edit the article so as to resist such attacks on it. Remember, though, that most people who read this article won't be hard-core Wikipedians approaching it from the standpoint of whether it belongs here. Most readers will be people who've seen some stuff in the media about election issues and want our help in getting a handle on the controversy.
• The most important policy here is from Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should briefly summarize the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:News style)." That page goes on to mention making the material "absolutely clear to the nonspecialist". The version you've reverted to doesn't mention some of the controversies that will interest readers, like absentee ballot problems. It's pitched more toward readers who already have some knowledge of the dispute. An example is the use of the term "data irregularities" in the first sentence. My proposal is that the lead section should be at a more introductory level. "Imagine yourself as a high school student in the country farthest away from your own, but who has managed to learn English reasonably well." (Wikipedia:Establish context)
• My proposal for the lead (see User:JamesMLane/2004 U.S. election voting controversies - lead) omits the specific evidence, but obviously that shouldn't be omitted from the article. Any of the details that I removed that aren't also covered later in the article should be added in their respective sections. JamesMLane 18:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Listing the page on VfD was just one hurdle we've had to overcome.
• You have not commented yet on my specific comments against that text? Kerry conceding should not mentioned, massive fraud should not be limited in scope because of margin, more than Ohio should be mentioned and data irrgularity needs to be mentioned the most often including exit polls as that is the master key to the article without which it would not be relevant. Also, the tone I don't like and can be improved.
• Voting machines have to be mentioned in detail
• Would you like me to just massively fix your proposed text?
• The article is all about evidence, more of it should be in the introduction
• The list of examples section is below the introduction, let's focus our effects there as we seem to be in agreement about its quality.
• The size of the introduction is likely to be in direct proportion to the size of the article, the current 3 paragraph introduction is brief (I think your introduction is longer than current actually).
• Introductory tone for newbies is fine but you've failed to capture the important parts that follow in the article, I strongly do not agree with that text in its current form.
• Some attempt should be given to following the order of contents as far as introducing what will follow.
• You are doing more than removing evidence from the lead, you've limited the article's scope in some areas and increased it in others (wrongly so).
• Note the "current event in progress" header at the top, I think that alone allays many of your concerns about what the introduction should be like.
• The introduction is too bland.
• You can say that senate, house and local races were questioned without out saying "there was generally less attention paid to", that is simply bad style.
• "More controversial was the charge that these issues might have affected the reported outcome" This is the main point of the article, not the secondary, should not be the second sentence.
• "improperties" --> "irregularities"
• needs to mention blackboxvoting.org
• You've gutted all mentioning of statisticians from the intro, that is a travesty and I can't agree. Again, the main argument of the controversy is from statistical analysis.
• Please note that "among the issues raised were" does not list 75% of what the article is about (exit polls, registration, statistical analysis, charts and graphs, voting machines). Compare your list with the TOC. My list there are the key issues in the article, not long lines and voter suppression.
• If you had read the talk page discussions of old you would have noticed we agreed to focus the article's scope on exactly the kind of allegations that had the potential to affect the outcome of the election (statistical analysis that shows exit poll data was correct in non-swing states yet inexplicably wrong elsewhere, for one thing). We should not get bogged down by he said she said accusations of election day impropriety, we should encourage and report on independent statistical analysis.
• Zen Master 19:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, I've read all the "talk page discussions of old". I don't have time to answer each of your specific comments right now, but most of them would be covered by what I just wrote at User talk:JamesMLane/2004 U.S. election voting controversies - lead: that you and I have two completely different articles in mind. I'd like to know what would be your ideal title for the article that would focus on what you see as the key issues, i.e., for the article you described in your sandbox comment: "the article strives to be just a mathematical analysis...." For my part, I think there definitely needs to be an article in which long lines, voter suppression, registration issues, absentee ballots etc. are key issues. The article I want would, as I mentioned, give considerable attention to points that are being raised that aren't claimed to have affected the Bush versus Kerry outcome but that are cited by some critics as matters of election procedure that need to be changed. The article you want is reflected more closely in the current TOC of this one -- a TOC that, as I said on the talk page, I don't agree with. That leads me to think more strongly that we should just have two articles. For the one I envision, "2004 U.S. election voting controversies" is a good title, with maybe "2004 U.S. election data irregularities" for the other one? Obviously, they'd need to be cross-linked, and each of them linked from U.S. presidential election, 2004. JamesMLane 19:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)