Comments on: Hello from Dean for America

By: Me

Me — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:51:39 +0000

Phoenix Woman: Gore did not "Win". It was a statistical tie.

Anyone with any knowledge of basic math and political science can see that, when Gore's supposed victory margin is an order of magnitude less than the margin of error, it is not a "victory" of any sort. I provided citations up above. You can look up the numbers of votes yourself.

And J-Sin: You may bite my red-hot, glowing ass.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:05:39 +0000

Jason writes:
"I do think, however, that many who have posted have unrealistic expectations of the political process."

I agree. While Gov. Dean's staff should have prepped him more regarding the issues that dominate this blog, too many of the bloggers here ignore the issues which exist beyond this blog.

By: Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:35:08 +0000

Oh, and "me" --

Please provide cites showing that Al Gore, as you claim, lost the overall popular vote in the US. Most legitimate sources I've seen say he won it by over 500,000 votes.

By: Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:33:17 +0000

What I find interesting is that the tenth post in this thread is by someone who chides Dean for not being courageous, yet was himself too cowardly to make a post with any sort of name. (Too bad for him that the sysops can see his IP address anyway.)

By: J-Sin

J-Sin — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:32 +0000

Me: Say "hi" to Karl Rove for us.

By: Me

Me — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:59:17 +0000

Filchyboy, the Constitution is there as a reference. When people can't agree on the law, however, it goes to the courts.

Better than having a fistfight over it.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:14:25 +0000

Nope me. We have a Constitution to "adjudicate matters like these." It very specifically lays out the method for dealing with matters like these.

SCOTUS is not mentioned. The House is.

By: Me

Me — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:34:52 +0000

Carlton,

They're not lies. Gore didn't win the popular vote overall. Even if it were entirely optical, with an error margin of 1-2%, he wouldn't have better than a statistical tie.

And where the hell did I ever mention New Mexico?

By: Carlton Nettleton

Carlton Nettleton — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:20:20 +0000

Thanks to everyone for having us Dean people over for the week. Like most guests, we have trashed the place and overstayed our welcome. I hope to come back sometime in the future, but this time mostly as a lurker. I know next to nothing on IP issues so I hope to learn a bit more before participating in the future. While that would normally not stop me from commenting, this blog expects its contributing members to have a good grasp of the material.

By: Carlton Nettleton

Carlton Nettleton — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:24:11 +0000

The margin of error quoted assumes that EVERYONE in the country used punch card ballots using the same model of punch card machines. Quoting this obscure fact is also a misunderstand what margin of error means. I am not surprised since I have observed many instances of nonscientific people abusing scientific language to support casual observations and using those casual relationships as fact or proof to something generally not support by facts.

Margin of errors are applied to OBSERVATIONS to provide qualifiers when it is impossible to make a continuous recording of observations. Margin of error is generally used to incorporate instrument error, human error, bad record keeping and the obervation that natural processes are chaotic and/or do not behave identically under the same measurement conditions. High margins of error often indicate poor recording techniques, bad equipment and/or improper application of theory to data. Scientific studies with high margins of error are usually sent back to the researcher since they show poor methodology and sloppy research.

The only standards that have any meaning are the standards the judge overseeing the recount had ordered - a statewide recount of ALL legal votes in every county in the state. The only standard in which Bush wins Florida is when you ignore the overvote on the optical scanner ballots - an overvote on an optical scanner ballot is when the bubble is marked for one candidate AND that voter has added candidate's name on the write-in line.

If you don't believe me, then try the experiment yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html

Or better yet, here is the link to the raw data from the NORC study:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results/index.html

What evidence do you have that the votes in New Mexico are invalid? There are no facts to support your claim, just as there are no facts to support your claim that Gore lost the popular vote in Florida. Just because you don't like the truth, or the outcome, doesn't mean you can ignore it or supress the facts. It is about time that people of good conscience starting standing up and calling things what they are - lies.