Slashdot Mirror
Berkeley Researchers Analyze Florida Voting Patterns
empraptor writes "Researchers at UC Berkeley have crunched numbers and determined that 130,000-260,000 excess votes went to Bush in Florida. They have held a conference and posted their findings online. You can find articles on their research from CNet, Wired News, and many other sources. While the research used statistical analysis based on past elections and demographics, how else do you verify that a paperless voting system is working properly?"
Researchers at UC Berkeley have crunched numbers and determined that 130,000-260,000 excess votes went to Bush in Florida
If it came from a less biased source I might believe it. Also 130,000 to 260,000 is a large gap for a statistical study.
Wow, a UC Berkeley study that's AGAINST a Republican? What's next? MicroSoft releasing a survey that shows Linux doesn't have any market share?
1) Kerry conceded. ;)
2) The controversial state this time was Ohio, not Florida. Let's stop living in the past.
3) Bush won the popular vote handily, even without the "contested" Florida votes, so all you whiny crybabies who were so quick to point out that Gore won the popular vote last time don't really have a leg to stand on.
Bush won. Get over it.
Yeah, that damned conservative media always causing problems.
Remember that time CBS used forged documents to try and smear Kerry's military records?
Ooooh...wait...nevermind.
I can't fucking believe it. Research from Berkeley that would seem to denegrate republicans. NO FUCKING WAY! Even more, that research relied on STATISTICS! Wow, conclusive proof there!
In other news, research published by the Hussein Center for Dictatorial Research has found that the Duelfer report was all lies. News at 11.
OMFG! She met with some (ack!!) COMMUNISTS!! Oh Shit! Oh no!
Dude, time to catch up. Your reasoning is so 1960s. Communists are no longer the official bogeyman, Bin Laden and the Muslims are.
how else do you verify that a paperless voting system is working properly?
Easy. If the Democrat candidate won, the voting system is working properly. Because, after all, only Republicans cheat in elections. And paper ballots are infallible, because no one could "lose" them or otherwise misrepresent the count.
I've learned these and other "election truths" from liberals by watching the past two elections. The moment Bush won this election, I got a kick out of watching the "rigged election" accusations come rolling in. Now let's be honest here folks: if Kerry had won, would the reaction have been the same? Would the same people who are today bemoaning electronic voting machines have immediately stepped up afterwards and said "wait a minute, how do we know Kerry didn't rig the election? I don't trust these electronic voting machines"? No, absolutely not. If Kerry had won, the liberals would believe that electronic voting is infallible (up until the point that another Republican president wins).
Sorry, but I don't buy all these rumors about electronic voting software being so incredibly difficult to write that every implementation is hopelessly buggy. You punch a button and a counter gets incremented. It hardly gets much easier than that. Bells and whistles like printing increase the complexity slightly, but the core software used to tally votes is trivially simple. I don't think it's the voting software you have to look out for, but the people who have unrestricted, after-hours access to the machines. THEY are the ones tampering with the machines, much like in other elections they've been able to tamper with boxes full of ballots.
The electoral college is not going to change it's mind because 4 college kids misinterpreted their results. The only votes Bush 'stole' in these three counties were the Hispanic votes. He stole them fair and square, not through electronic trickery. The 4 kids may be able to manipulate numbers, but they aren't too swift when it comes to weighting their input and drawing conclusions from the results.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
(Of course, if Kerry had won, that would have been proof that the voting system is inadequate and flawed. But Bush won, so the voting system is perfect.)
No, I've actually saw a NeoCon float into the air his faith was so strong. And many have started dragging their knuckles, throwing poo and grunting things like "flip flop" and grinning to each other like they said something profound.
It seems science has been terribly wrong about evolution; "if you quit believing it, it might pass you by."
Do I sound a little pissed? The liberal in me has been trying to convince these people that the media is "CORPORATE" and that Liberal and Republican and other terms are just ways to distract us so that we will sling poo at each other.
You can't even save these throwbacks from themselves. I would want to laugh at what happens when we get a Flat Tax or a Value Added Tax to further rip off the poor and the middle class, but alas, I'll be too busy getting by and scraping out a living.
And Evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact. When they say "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" please note that Darwin was a scientist who posed an explanation for why a few species of animal could come to an island and fill all the ecological niches in diverse roles. There is more than one "Theory" of evolution. Survival of the fittest does not explain everything we observe. There is a lot more cooperation in nature then we once believed. But the important point is, that people need to know that because science has not explained the HOW of something, it doesn't mean that the WHAT isn't a fact. All life evolves. That is fact, or we wouldn't need a new flu vaccine each year (quick someone tell the white house). And gravity DOES exist, and that is a fact, even though there are no good explanations of HOW it works.
That is another point; nature has diverse roles for all life. So we can't all be rich owners or financial brokers. Some of us have to pick up the trash or make things. Should those people have no right to a fair living?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
The thing is, the Democrats those crackers used to vote for were people like George Wallace (a notorious segregationist, iirc), so it's hardly surprising they vote for Dubyah these days. They're obviously uncomfortable with anyone too far to the left of Adolf Hitler.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
This politics bullshit needs to go. I'm so tired of it Slashdot is no longer fun to read.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty