UC Berkeley prof proves Bush stole election!!!

University of California at Berkeley ^ | 11/18/2004 | Michael Hout

[ArcLight]

Summary:

- Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W. Bush in Florida.

- Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.

- In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.

- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.

[schaketo]

We must all work diligently in the coming months to convince “progressives” that the Democratic Party has let them down. They must abandon the party. Their only recourse is to join and work for the Green Party moving forward. I may even register as a Green Party member to swell their voter registration rolls. Divide and conquer.

Begin with putting all known “progressives” in your sphere of influence on the Green Party mail list from their website. Great fun. Start inundating them with information now.

[justshutupandtakeit]

He is right this did not happen because of "chance."

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

That wouldn't quite make up for the 381,000 votes Bush carried the state by.

No doubt the "professor" will revise his/her statement to say 381,001 votes were found.

It's funny how liberals assume the world acts like them (steal elections, hate people, discriminate, dope smokers, fudge packers, etc.)

[vrwc1]

Here's a quote from the report that shows clear evidence of the researchers' bias:

The evidence for this is the statistical significance of terms in our model that gauge the average impact of e-voting across Florida’s 67 counties and statistical interaction effects that gauge its larger-than-average effect in counties where Vice President Gore did the best in 2000 and slightly negative effect in the counties where Mr. Bush did the best in 2000.

They call Al Gore "Vice President Gore", and yet they call George Bush "Mr. Bush". It's clear they don't even think he's the President!

[CyberAnt]

"were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004"

And .. as usual the Professor is too stooooooopid to find out that the reason for the increase is that DEMOCRATS WERE VOTING FOR BUSH.

[AmishDude]

I didn't want to decipher their data, it doesn't deserve that kind of time. Suffice it to say (1) they include the Dole results from 1996 as some sort of control, (2) they do not take into account Jewish populations, but do take into account Hispanic populations, which is strange considering that Joe Lieberman was on the ticket in 2000, (3) they assume 2000 is correct and accurate data and 2004 is the variable.

This is the most egregious error from a scientific point of view. It is quite possible (indeed, quite likely) that the counties that went electronic in 2004 had some of their hanky-panky pared down as compared to 2000.

[SuziQ]

The President won, Professor; give it a rest.

[NRA1995]

Saw this earlier on DU.....they're over there practically wetting themselves that this MIGHT overturn the election!

[Bigh4u2]

They aren't stupid.

They have an A G E N D A!!!!

[msnimje]

How long until someone who actually knows how to think debunks this steaming pile of statistical crap?

[graf008]

Even if this was true - wouldn't change anything. And it isn't true...next.

[Hombre]

Maybe this just means the electronic machines are more accurate than paper ballets! Could it be that Bush got 130,000 too few votes 4 years ago? This man must have read the book "How To Lie With Statistics."

[PresidentFelon]

Yeah, their quantitative analysis using theoretical models driven by "assumptions" in the absence of historical data on e-vote machines sounds like "proof" to me.

My God, we taxpayers are funding these morons.


PresidentFelon

[RushCrush]

TROLL
(kidding)

[UltraKonservativen]

Wake me up when it gets interesting!

[AmericanInTokyo]

The more this the BETTER. It gives radical, hard core democrats more hope in what is a totally FUTILE SITUATION.

Thereby distracting them from opposing the next six months when Bush really cleans out Washington. Think about it. They will go down that dead end road, a pipe dream, waste all their money and websites and resources while transfixed on that goose chase, all the while we can solidify even more gains in the federal judiciary and clean out the bureaucracy; they will wake up realizing that a) they were fools; and b) while they were pissing up a rope, we solidifed even more gains. GREAT! I may even donate a bit.

[IrishBrewer]

Even if his thesis is true, a alternative hypothesis could also be responsible. Electronic voting machines are more resistant to traditional fraud, therefore democrat vote fraud is suppressed

I had the same thought. Many of the counties mentioned (such as Broward) have Democratically controlled election boards. If there was fraud, it happened under the direct control of the Democrats. My feeling is that there wasn't and that the new machines gave a better accounting of the votes in counties where the accuracy wasn't so good in the past. It is very telling that the liberal Berkley professors don't even consider this as a possibility (at least they don't mention it as being a plausible explanation in their paper).

[RS]

"UC Berkeley prof proves Bush stole election!!!

"...voting machines ~~ may ~~ have awarded..."
"...were significantly more ~~ likely ~~ to show..."
"...Bush ~~ appears ~~ to ..."

It appears likely that he may not know what the word "proof" means.

[DennisR]

Hey! He is a university professor, so whatever he says is honest, objective, true, unimpeachable, correct, infalliable, above reproach ... okay, you get the idea.

[SmithL]

Every Vote Counted!

Hooray!