I know it's a bit pot/kettle but dude... stay on topic - Edit 2
Before modification by Isaac at 11/04/2012 01:38:13 AM
Really don't need the tangential remarks about your opinion of 2011's redistricting in my state... nor your opinion on the GOP view of oligarchy... or Nixon and Ford... what the fuck man?
As to voting machines, a simple and less nefarious answer is that there is a certain minimum each polling precinct must have, thus a precinct with 300 reg voters might have 2 and one with 500 might have 2 and one with 900 might have 3 and 1500 4, you can't have half a machine and you obviously can't only have one in case it breaks or malfunctions. Hence, non-linear skew towards machine density in low populace areas... which are also Republican. Bad marks for the guy that made that bar graph too, to show Kerry's monstrous graph towering over Bush's and swing territory like MT Everest next to a molehill... which is also deliberately falsified... look at the bar graph for Bush at 212 hanging under the 210 line, where as Kerry's and the swings peak over their lines... at 249 and 223 respectively. None of which counters the net effect of having a minimum number of voting machines in a given precinct no matter how small... a proper analysis would have compared districts of parallel pop count separately, such an oversight is proof of perfidy to those of us who are data-crunchers. As was the lack of margins for uncertainties. Also it deals with Columbus not Cleveland.
By the way none of that would deal with practical issues, like maybe having one machine left with another breaking down and two approximetly equal districts to split it with, but the truck going out to the one has a fair amount of empty space and the other doesn't. That's a hypothetical, but don't get in the habit of thinking that even legitimate non-partisan analysis is ironclad especially when dealing with small pools and a minor difference, in this case that blue districts had 11.7% more active voters then swing precincts, and red districts 4.9% less... in one county, where is the analysis of other counties? Where is the testimony from the persons (and all BoE's in Ohio are bi-partisan) explaining the apparent discrepancies?
So that's 1 down, as to the others, you're mostly talking about anecdotal evidence gathered by reporters, that's one thing right after something happens, it's another years later when there has been ample time for someone to have put together affadavits, phone records, and other things generally considered evidence which a bunch of people mutter off record with no threat of perjury or divine wrath to make them reconsider exaggerations or falsehoods very much is not. A couple days after, yes, months or years, no. I deal in verifiable facts, they need not be definitely true or utterly substantiated but they must hold up to at least cursory examination without turning into dust or I don't want to hear about them.
You didn't provide any, except that voting machine analysis which I have offered a very compelling explanation for... one frankly I would have thought you could see. Now Blackwell not letting in reporters to video tape the recount, this is what is known as 'circumstantial evidence' something you seem to genuinely not understand, it's utterly irrelevant to voting machines or voter suppression. It's also not even vaguely abnormal and after the debacle four years prior of videotaping those recounts in Florida no one wanted a repeat, the Dems had their people in, so did the GOP, and seeing as it is highly improbable they were conspiring to steal green/lib votes it's irrelevant.
Now, what specific irregularities? What affadavit or case was filed and not tossed out on its ass citing someone being denied or seriously delayed in their vote with documentation from witnesses who aren't totally biased or of an objective variety like a camera or time sheet is there that you'd like to use to back any of this up? Because a bunch of sore losers howling about something for years until the uninformed simply believe its true is not 'proof' just gossip and griping.
As to voting machines, a simple and less nefarious answer is that there is a certain minimum each polling precinct must have, thus a precinct with 300 reg voters might have 2 and one with 500 might have 2 and one with 900 might have 3 and 1500 4, you can't have half a machine and you obviously can't only have one in case it breaks or malfunctions. Hence, non-linear skew towards machine density in low populace areas... which are also Republican. Bad marks for the guy that made that bar graph too, to show Kerry's monstrous graph towering over Bush's and swing territory like MT Everest next to a molehill... which is also deliberately falsified... look at the bar graph for Bush at 212 hanging under the 210 line, where as Kerry's and the swings peak over their lines... at 249 and 223 respectively. None of which counters the net effect of having a minimum number of voting machines in a given precinct no matter how small... a proper analysis would have compared districts of parallel pop count separately, such an oversight is proof of perfidy to those of us who are data-crunchers. As was the lack of margins for uncertainties. Also it deals with Columbus not Cleveland.
By the way none of that would deal with practical issues, like maybe having one machine left with another breaking down and two approximetly equal districts to split it with, but the truck going out to the one has a fair amount of empty space and the other doesn't. That's a hypothetical, but don't get in the habit of thinking that even legitimate non-partisan analysis is ironclad especially when dealing with small pools and a minor difference, in this case that blue districts had 11.7% more active voters then swing precincts, and red districts 4.9% less... in one county, where is the analysis of other counties? Where is the testimony from the persons (and all BoE's in Ohio are bi-partisan) explaining the apparent discrepancies?
So that's 1 down, as to the others, you're mostly talking about anecdotal evidence gathered by reporters, that's one thing right after something happens, it's another years later when there has been ample time for someone to have put together affadavits, phone records, and other things generally considered evidence which a bunch of people mutter off record with no threat of perjury or divine wrath to make them reconsider exaggerations or falsehoods very much is not. A couple days after, yes, months or years, no. I deal in verifiable facts, they need not be definitely true or utterly substantiated but they must hold up to at least cursory examination without turning into dust or I don't want to hear about them.
You didn't provide any, except that voting machine analysis which I have offered a very compelling explanation for... one frankly I would have thought you could see. Now Blackwell not letting in reporters to video tape the recount, this is what is known as 'circumstantial evidence' something you seem to genuinely not understand, it's utterly irrelevant to voting machines or voter suppression. It's also not even vaguely abnormal and after the debacle four years prior of videotaping those recounts in Florida no one wanted a repeat, the Dems had their people in, so did the GOP, and seeing as it is highly improbable they were conspiring to steal green/lib votes it's irrelevant.
Now, what specific irregularities? What affadavit or case was filed and not tossed out on its ass citing someone being denied or seriously delayed in their vote with documentation from witnesses who aren't totally biased or of an objective variety like a camera or time sheet is there that you'd like to use to back any of this up? Because a bunch of sore losers howling about something for years until the uninformed simply believe its true is not 'proof' just gossip and griping.