[ArcLight]

This is hugh!

[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!

[mlocher]

there are lies, damn lies and stastics!

[melbell]

stuning!

[Rippin]

If I understand this paper correctly, it is completely consistent with the following explanation.

1. Democrats traditionally commit vote fraud in heavily Democratic districts.

2. Electronic voting machines are a new tool and they have not figured out how to manipulate them yet.

3. Fraud occurred in heavily Democratic counties in 2000 because old familiar technology was used.

4. Fraud was lessened in 2004 because electronic voting has not been coopted yet.

Incredibly they spend this much time thinking about a topic and it never crosses their mind they are walking into a trap.

[Sender]

These idiots are not only oblivious to losing in 2004, they still are hanging on to 2000. One nitwit posted "If only President Gore had been allowed to serve out his term, none of this would be happening!".

[Junior_G]

This is hilarious. Apparently this is what liberals are talking about when they say they're more intelligent than Republicans. It's not real intelligence; but rather an ability to take the most stupid concept and convert it into a scholarly-sounding research paper. What a stellar piece of crap these people have produced!

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

So what this Berkeley dude was saying was "Hey! You know, Kerry's lame and couldn't win on his own, so we'll just say Bush is bogus and the whole election thing was bogus too." Yeah?

[Tacis]

Not worth reading the article. However, these variances can be explained by the simply fact that the dems weren't able to steal the votes this time that they stole before machine use.

[b4its2late]

Vey series.....

[Not A Snowbird]

"Berkeley" is all I need to know about this guy's credentials.

[kabar]

Easy to explain. The Dems can't use their stolen punch card voting machines to double punch GOP ballots thus spoiling them. It would be interesting to find out the spoiled ballot rate for 200 and 2004.

[rightinthemiddle]

Okay, start the recount thread. Life was getting boring.

[eno_]

What it shows is that, depsite some misgivings, including my own, about electronic voting machines, they are much less susceptible to vote fraud than paper ballots, which can be bulk-punched thereby producing the infamous "hanging chads."

Bush won bigger where fraud was less.

[Torie]

Oh, Bush only got more votes than predicted in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami Dade, and lost votes in other electronic voting counties. LOL. It would be odd if Rove was able to steal votes in these Dem controlled counties. Is it at all possible that Bush did better then predicted from his statewide performance, because of the 6% swing to him amoung Jewish voters? Nah, nope; Rove stole them. Let's move on.

"Electronic voting raised President Bush’s advantage from the tiny edge held in 2000 to a clearer margin of victory in 2004. The impact of e-voting was not uniform, however. Its impact was proportional to the Democratic support in the county, i.e., it was especially large in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade. The evidence for this is the statistical significance of terms in our model that gauge the averageimpact 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. The state-wide impact of these disparities due to electronic voting amount to 130,000 votes if we assume a “ghost vote” mechanism and twice that – 260,000 votes – if we assume that a vote misattributed to one candidate should have been counted for the other."

[Publius6961]

- Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W. Bush in Florida.
...
- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.

D'OH!

This is hilarious! First they don't define "...awarded 130,000 excess votes...". This is just another (confusing) way of saying "...more votes than we think he should have gotten", or "...more votes than he got last time", both of which are arbitrary and unfounded.

In addition, I can be 99.9% sure that the "chance" statement is a red herring, since the "not by chance" explanation can be (among other things) that the "effect" could also be the results of 130,000 Bush votes that were not thrown away or replaced this time, due to the increased scrutiny...

What a steaming pile of bovine excrement!

[festus]

If he convinces enough lefties we actually did steal the election then they'll just give up and quit voting on the theory we'll just steal it anyway.

And this will only make the job of actually winning the elections for us easier.

[evangmlw]

Could it be this exposes the Democraps fraud on paper ballots in Broward 2000? This sounds like a more reasonable explanation to me. Dems were not able commit fraud this round with electronic voting verses paper last election.

[gitmo]

Conclusion: Paper ballots over-represented Kerry votes in the 2004 election.