Regarding Math Degrees, Legitimacy and Transparency [View All]

Several people (most particularly, Euler) have been criticizing TruthIsAll for only providing the TYPE of math degrees he/she holds - not the institutions or the years.

This is barking up the wrong tree. I can see that from TruthIsAll's analysis that he/she is good at math. But this is still not the issue: You shouldn't have to be a math genius to believe that the election results are valid.

What we are dealing with here should not be terribly complicated math:

(1) Basically, it's ADDITION: Add up the votes.

(2) Aside from that, it's CHECKING YOUR WORK: See if the "official" vote totals agree with the exit polls.

(3) Maybe throw in a little PROBABILITY: How likely is it that the thousands of "errors" in the voting system ALL FAVORED BUSH.

You don't need a degree in higher mathematics to be able to answer these questions. Anyone can add (and so can Diebold ATMs - but for some reason, the voting machines made by Diebold and other vendors can't), anyone can check their work (but for some reason, our voting machine results don't check against our exit poll results), and anyone who's flipped a coin a few times knows what randomness looks like (but for some reason, our voting machines only make mistakes that favor Republicans).

You don't need a higher degree in mathematics to see any of this. The American voting system is dysfunctional: it can't add; the results don't agree with the exit polls (which was {one} reason the Ukraine's results got thrown out); and its errors always favor one party.

You don't need a degree in mathematics to see any of this. Nor should you - a properly designed voting system should be transparent enough that its legitimacy is apparent to ALL VOTERS, without needing explanations from mathematicians.

(Edited per suggestion from post 2 below.)