Anyone have evidence to refute this article from St. Petersburg Times?

here it is:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/11/11/Columns/Internet_post_electio.shtml

help!

articles that are critical of the claims of voter fraud?


Hmmmmm....

in fact, I've pushed really hard for people to read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x46550

I think it is good knowledge to have.

:D :D :D

Florida is soooo 2000. Focus on Ohio, where the real battle plays out:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

he doesn't quote one academic paper, one article about BBV
or statistical analysis.

It's another spin propaganda paper.

They don't want to assist in getting an auditable fair election
system in this country.

It's not about who won, it's about a tinkertoy system that gives
no confidence in the vote, proven hackable, littered with problems
and they will not report that or even go to experts who are
analyzing this story.

I'm so sick of Repuke spin or any spin for that matter being reported
as news.

he uses no statistical analysis to disprove the data that has been disseminated he just says his opinion which is worth squat. There is nothing in this article to refute because there is nothing in this article of merit.

If you read the refined Florida analysis carefully, it discounts the "Dixiecrat" explanation to some degree. It is clear to me that the person writing this article has not actually read said analysis. But how can you argue with spin? I could explain it to him in great detail, but if he didn't understand it (because he has no background in statistics) he won't change his mind...

This is something that is making me increasingly frustrated over the last few days - it seems like both sides are grabbing onto the titles of these statistical analyses (or worse yet, what the media or their friends told them they said) and waving them around like a flag to support their own ideas about what happened. Nobody is actually investigating them in any great detail to determine if their friends, the DU, or the media spin doctors have come up with the correct interpretation of this data.

Everybody on the left needs to get informed about this stuff so they can refute these kinds of bullshit "spin" arguments when they come up. They also need to be aware of some of the methodological flaws in some of the studies that support their viewpoint - forewarned is forearmed...

According to hardee county website which is www.hardeecountyelections.com/GEMS%20SOVC%%20REPORT%2011-02-05.pdf there are 10,399 registered voters and 63.8% are DEM and 26.7% Repub yet only 29.63% showed up to vote dem and 69.66% showed up for the repubs. Furthermore this county had a total count of 7245 and 72.16% of the republican vote was cast by early and absentee votes while only 27.25% of dems voted early and by absentee. This means 70% of dems didn't vote. Sounds fishy. Also the majority of votes were cast by absentee and early voting as I am finding the same in Jefferson county. 3838 were cast early and by absentee. Here is another confusing stat for this jurisdiction it shows 118.33% turn out and 14562 ballots cast with 7763 being absentee or early and with only 12,306 registered. Maybe someone else can look at the numbers and tell me what they think.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2682466

Read this and tell me we had a legitimate election. I dare you.