Odds of ballot fraud makes MSM

for Republicans, of course, and a weak example, but perhaps someone can answer this calculation since I can't reach my own statisticians right now:

The Seattle times, concerning recently discovered 94 uncounted ballots in WA gubernatorial race still subject of election contest:

"The possibility of fraud comes not from a specific allegation but from a so far unexplained statistic:

Out of 91 missed ballots whose precincts were known last week, 61 were cast in precincts Rossi won in November.

Given that Gregoire won King County by a 58-40 split and led the final results in about 70 percent of all the county's 2,616 precincts, Republicans find it suspicious that so many of the uncounted ballots came from Rossi strongholds.

"Can it be random error?" Vander Stoep asked. "What are the odds of that being chance?" "

Q: And the odds of this ARE..... ______________________

( I would use this answer to respond to MSM and suggest some more interesting probabilities they should put on the front page)

10 million to one odds against the way in which the official result skewed to Bush, vs. the exit polls. (It's not so much that Kerry won the exit polls--we could argue all day long with freepers about their accuracy; it's that, whatever skew there may have been in the exit polls would have been in evidence in a more or less uniform way, and it is not--the skew favors Bush in a big way in 7 of 50 states and is virtually impossible.) (To clarify, this is evidence that the reported vote was wrong in 7 of 50 states--which just happen to be the battleground states. There is also a smaller skew to Bush in many other states, which likely means manufacturing and padding Bush's popular majority.)

(But speaking of the accuracy or possible skew to Kerry in the exit polls: US Count Votes found evidence in Edison/Mitofksy's own data, that the exit polls were actually skewed to Bush--contrary to news monopoly reports. Meaning that Kerry's margin of victory was likely greater than the exit poll 3%.)

I think TruthIsAll calculated the odds against of the touchscreens changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, with only a miniscule number doing the opposite. (--astronomical). And other such odds. One of his posts in his "To believe Bush won, you have to believe..." series. Don't have the specific url. If you want to track it down, try his compendium:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x349559

It's remarkable, isn't it, what the news monopolies tend to dwell upon?!

...that the polls were not accurate (despite the evidence that they were), ask them about the accurancy of the official result. Can they prove that Bush won? How? What numbers are they trusting? What is their source?

Wally O'Dell & buddies counting all our votes on central electronic vote tabulators, with their secret, proprietary programming code, and no audit trail? How reliable is that?

The news monopolies who got their data from the same source? Right--and who furthermore DOCTORED the exit polls on everybody's TV screens, on election day, hiding the fact that Kerry won the exit polls! How reliable are the news monopolies? (--they gave us completely wrong information about Iraq WMDs, and led us right into Bush's unjust war--how can they be trusted?)

As Jimmy Carter (highly respected international elections monitor) said, the US election system in 2004 didn't meet even the minimum requirements for transparency--that's why the Carter Center couldn't monitor the 2004 election.

The truth is that NOBODY KNOWS what the vote really was. And we are forced to use inferential evidence, such as the exit polls--which are used worldwide to verify elections and check for fraud--to determine what happened. And, upon analysing those polls, and other evidence--such as the blowout Democratic success in new voter registration in 2004--it sure looks like Kerry won, maybe by a landslide. That hyopothesis is at least as valid as the hypothesis that Bush won, and has more reliable and verifiable supporting evidence.

you write

When they (freepers) say that the polls were not accurate (despite the evidence that they were)

and

the exit polls--which are used worldwide to verify elections and check for fraud--

Hmmmm. Okay. I'm not a freeper. Guaranteed. Find one freeper comment I've made. But, I'm skeptical of:

<> the tallied results of the November 2004 election

<> the news monopolies

<> the voting machine vendors

AND

<> the exit polls.

The main exit poll guys were hired by the news monopolies. The same news monopolies that REFUSE, utterly refuse, to seriously cover the massive and diverse instances of election flaws and fraud. Mitofsky/Edison STILL haven't released details of their numbers, methodology, etc. They and the media are hiding it. Why? You tell me.

Exit polls, you say, verify elections. Well, sure, they can "verify" each other, if they're both crooked, and they change midstream to match each other. Then, the media comes afterward and "verifies" the whole sham.

Exit polls can, in theory, be used to find out what certain demographics did-- did young Hispanic males vote this way or that, what about soccer moms, etc. But, none of this stuff works without transparency and honesty, and these exit polls had no more transparency than the election itself.

I'm not saying they exit polls are wrong. I'm saying I don't know, and I'm not hitching my wagon to them.

to point ou that Bush won on moral issues. How can they say the exit polls are inaccurate but then use them just the same? Thier blatant hypocrisy is there for anyone to see but no one says shit about it.

See, when they run elections AND exit polls behind closed doors, which they do, not only do they get to win, they get to say WHY they won!

I think there were hundreds of flaws in that election if not thousands, plus documented illegalities, at a minimum violating the Civil Rights acts. My best guess is that Kerry won with 53% or 54% or more, but I can't prove that. None of us can.

Meanwhile, the dubious winners get to prance around and proclaim they won because they got the religious right to vote, or they got the people worried about moral values, or gee they just like George, or gosh, 41% voted that way because they liked Laura's hair (ok, I made the last one up).

It's all fiction, best I can tell. Spin, upon spin.

By the way, there is a polling organization run by a Leftie. They do traditional random sampling, but ask really interesting questions that the mainstream pollster never ask. And, they combine questions about one's level of being informed with one's views, and that makes for interesting reading. http://www.retropoll.org/

How many precincts went to Gregorie and how many went to Rossi?

Mike