[ArcLight]

This is hugh!

[standupfortruth]

ROFLMAO at "excess votes" :?)

[GoMonster]

Hey dumbass professor I live in Broward county and got my whole family aunts, uncles, sisters, brother in laws etc.. to vote. So there goes your Broward County theory. They normally had not voted.

[Physicist]

A more careful comparison of '00 to '04 will show that the extra Bush votes in '04 actually should have been awarded to Pat Buchanan.

[rudypoot]

- 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.

They are starting out with the assumption that there is no way in hell Bush could recieve more votes than 2000.

[MediaMole]

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.

[Tarpaulin]

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

Professor Gore, allow me to posit that those effects indeed are not due to random chance, rather that the 72,000 votes cited for Bush were in fact, votes for Bush.

Thank you. You may now go back to your gay pride, nude parade.

[NonLinear]

Hmmm, let's see. This study ignored:

1. Bush was not an incumbant in 2000
2. Gore was a VP incumbant in 2000
3. We were not at war in 2000
4. We did not have a traitor running for president in 2000
5. The MSM had not been busted for blantent attempts to fraudulently affect the elections in 2000
6. Bush had not passed any tax reforms in 2000, as he had not been in oval office yet
7. The economy was headed down, not up in 2000. Vice versa for 2004.
8. The WTC had not been leveled by terrorists in 2000.

Geez, how many more variables do you need to exclude to support the hypothesis that Bush's increase was due to electronic voting machines?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

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.

Because the actual vote count doesn't mean anything.

[nobody_knows]

http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/hout/

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[Torie]

The article does not say Bush stole the election. It says that the swing to Bush in Florida was greater in the electronic voting counties than in the non electronic voting counties, and tries to correct for other variables, such as Hispanic population, population size, etc.

The counties are not listed, so I don't know if there is another logical explanation. The study did not also consider that maybe the electronic voting counties had more population growth than the state as a whole from 2000 to 2004. The correlation could also be random noise.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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."

[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.