Talk:2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:45, 9 November 2004 editFT2 (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits cleanup and some comments← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:06, 6 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk \| contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA.
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell}}
	==First discussion==
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|ap\|long}}
	Seems strange to include items from the campaign; would probably be better to seperate the campaign from the election itself. ] 04:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			{{Controversial-issues}}

			<div border="1" style="border:black solid; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;">
	:I had wondered how to title it. I wanted to capture and summarise the major alleged irregularities (whether campaign or voting) for which there is evidence or significant belief that they may have affected the election in a manner not usually felt to be acceptable, so that one can read, check sources and decide for oneself what to believe, what to ignore. As such, the title's as usual up for improvement if a better title would suit that area of interest. ] 05:26, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

			==Untitled==
	Perhaps "List of things people who hate the results might say about the U.S. Presidential Election, 2004" would be a better title. Why else would the "Bush was wired" gripe be here? It's neither a voting irregularity nor a misrepresentation. And a list such as this really ought to state exactly who the "alligator" was. - ] 05:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			This article was ] three times.

			* The result of the ] was '''Keep'''
	:Tentative article description: ''...concerns and allegations raised relating to matters which if correctly specified, would possibly not have fallen within the scope of "generally acceptable US election activity".'' I don't think it would be stretching the bounds to say that if Bush ''had'' been linked to people who could do research, make suggestions, give feedback, and prompt him during a debate, that would be an irregularity, if he falsely claimed it was a "shirt" that would be a misrepresentation in the US presidential election, and either way it would not be generally acceptable to voters who believed the debate to be fair. (That is '''not''' advocating a position, it is explaining why it is relevant within this article).
			* The result of the ] was '''Keep'''
			* The result of the ] was '''Merge and redirect'''.

			</div>
	:Relevant (and supported) information needed by a reader interested in this and other possible or alleged key election irregularity issues is therefore stated for others to decide what if anything they think it signifies. What is beyond doubt is there are (and were) widespread allegations and concerns about certain election matters felt to be inappropriate or worrying (see links, use wiki search, or use google), so an article summarising the main ones, and analysing them, is likely to be of interest by definition to a large part of the USA as well as other countries. ] 05:26, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

			<center><div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; width: 340px; border: 1px solid #333">'''Archives'''

			''For archived discussion of this page, please see:''
	Note on wording, if needed: An <u>abberation</u> means ''"A deviation from the proper or expected course"'' or ''"A departure from the normal or typical"''. An <u>anomaly</u> or <u>anomalous result</u> means ''"Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule"'' or ''"One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify"''. The distinction is that an anomaly is more a "this looks odd", whereas an abberation is more where it is confirmed there is an actual deviation of some kind from the expected. (Source: Dictionary.com)
			<table style="background-color: #f0f0ff">

			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td>Nov 5 2004 - Nov 9 2004</td></tr>
	==Capitalization?==
			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td>Nov 9 2004 - Nov 12 2004</td></tr>
	The title and headings of this article seem capitalized beyond the manual of style. Is there a reason for this, or can they be fixed and the page moved? ] ] 08:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td>Nov 12 2004 - Nov 17 2004</td></tr>

			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td>Nov 13 2004 - Dec 14 2004</td></tr>
	==Points added by Pedant==
			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td>Nov 18 2004 - Dec 13 2004 pt2</td></tr>

			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td>Dec 13 2004 - Jan 10 2005</td></tr>
	Pedant - you added 3 issues, namely:
			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td>Jan 11 2004 - Feb 14 2005</td></tr>
	*Discrepancies in claimed totals of provisional ballots in Ohio
			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td>Feb 14 2005 - Oct 19 2005</td></tr>
	*As many as 2000 "votes" present in at least one electronic voting machine before the polls opened
			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td> Oct 2005 - Jan 2006</td></tr>
	* 3-hour gap in the audit record of at least one voting machine
			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td> Feb 2005 - May 2006 </td></tr>
	I've found and added a source for the 3rd, can you find a website source and county location for the 2nd?
			<tr><td>''']'''</td><td> May 2006 - March 2008 </td></tr>

			<tr></tr>
	Also the 1st of these seems a bit vague and might have been covered by information in the section "Evidence of electronic voting bias". Can you check if it is, find a source, or tighten it up by specifying what kind of "discrepancies"? Thanks ] 14:04, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
			</table>

			</div></center>
	== Title? (Needs Shortening) ==

	How about just "Controversies with 20004 US Presdidential Election", or "2004 US Presidential Election Suspicious Activity", or even better "2004 US Election Irregularities", or "2004 US Election Fraud Theories" there may be irregularities outside the presidential part of the election. The electronic voting machines issues could be put into their own article. ] 16:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:I think "fraud theories" would be borderline POV and should be avoided. -- ] 17:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	::You are probably right. I believe "Controversies" captures the jist of the currently way too long title. So how about just "2004 US Election Controversies"? ] 17:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:::2004 U.S. Election Controversies seems to work for the allegations of voter fraud, but not so much for the 2004 campaign. Perhaps a different page for 2004 U.S. Campaign Controversies? ]
	::::"Election" includes the campaigns too I believe. ] 18:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:::::I support "2004 US election controversies" and changing all titles back to Misplaced Pages case. -- ] 20:39, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
	::::::Whatever you move it to, make sure you use proper capitalization. ]] 21:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
	:::::::It's ok by me but I've been wondering generally what is the thinking behind requiring lower case after the first word? ] 22:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	A word like "controversy" doesnt do it for me. The subject of this article isnt discussion of a "controversy" (such as different views on "Do aliens exist" or "Was the election fixed"). Its an article summarising evidence, listing item by item specific irregularities and misrepresentations alleged to have taken place during the election, not an analysis or discussion of any controvery which may or may not have resulted from it. (A bit like an article summarising and referencing evidence such as Nazi orders, Mein Kampf, Zyklon purchases and photos of bodies, as distinct from the controversy "Did the Holocaust take place"). ] 22:08, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

	:Until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt I am sure there are some that would say the conclusion it points to is controversial. While I agree with the distinct possibility of that conslusion a list of evidence is so far inconclusive. I think "controversy" is much stronger than "irregularities" and "misrepresentations" which at best only sound strong to a statisticial. Regardless, do you agree the title is currently too long? ] 22:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	::nods Shorter would be better than longer, I agree. However accurate is also more important than vague. The article may lead to a controversial conclusion in some eyes, but it is for all that, a summary of sourced evidence, not a discussion of a controversy. (And I take your point about "only strong to a statistician", but maybe others can advise if its an accurate perception?) ] 22:26, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

	:::Ok, let me rephrase with a new question: the evidence may be 100% factual but the conclusion is not? That is why the title should be "controversy" in my opion but I defer to the consensus of the group. Why do you use "Allegations" if you believe it is a list of factual evidence? How about "conspiracy" instead of "controversy"? I dislike "misrepresentations" in the current title a lot (weak sounding). How about "2004 US election discrepancies" or "2004 US election irregularities" or "Evidence of fraud in the 2004 US election" or "2004 US election irregularities" or "2004 US election conspiracy evidence"? last one probably too strong. ] 22:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:::No conclusion should be drawn in the article, no matter the evidence. That would be POV. There is evidence, and that is neutral and supported, but what it signifies is for a court to decide (which it may never do fairly to people's satisfaction, a lot of bona fide issues never reach the courts or are perceived to be whitewashed). Words like "conspiracy" ... well, we all know a few dozen conspiracy theories, its the next best thing to "dubious" which is unfortunate since "Evidence of 2004 US election conspiracy" might otherwise work. More important, a title that asserted there was a conspiracy, or votes were rigged, would be POV. "Allegations and evidence of fraud in the 2004 US election"? "Allegations of voting irregularities in the 2004 US election"? But then some of the alleged unacceptable practices werent voting fraud either. For now I agree its a mouthful, but at least its an accurate mouthful. Maybe others will have good suggestions. ] 22:58, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

	::::Presenting "facts" without counter argument or really mentioning the presumed conclusion is also POV wouldn't you say? What is being "alleged" exactly, since you say this is a list of factual evidence? If there are "allegations" then a "controversy" exists??? We should mention the conclusion in the article (with caveats) directly, don't beat around the bush (pun-intended). I can not stress enough how horrible the current title is on many levels, hopefully someone else will come up with something even better. Should we create a time limit of a few hours after which we will fix the title ourselves absent a better one? ] 23:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:::::Perhaps the simplest way is to just chop off the "allegations of". Another suggestion: "2004 US Election problems"? ] \| ] 23:16, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

	I would think '2004 U.S. Election Controversies' is fine. Controversies suggest (to me at least) something that is was questionable or unorthodox. But it also suggest public uproar. As far as I see it, there is no public uproar. But 'irregularities' suggest voting and 'misrepresentation' refers only to a small part of the campaign. 'Problem' seems too vague to me. ] Nov. 6, 2004
	:"2004 U.S. election controversies" seems to cover it. And just to let you know, Jonked, many protests and such have been staged in the past few days over the election, including in Ohio , and Colorado (these were the two I could find articles on quickly). ]]] 00:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:::If a protest hasn't disrupted my bus schedule and made me late for school, it doesn't exist. But your right. Just because the mainstream media considers the matter closed, doesn't mean people aren't in an uproat about it. ] Nov. 6, 2004
	:::That wouldnt be too bad I spose. ''"2004 U.S. Election Controversies and Irregularities"'' sounds better though as it highlights that there actually were irregularities not just "controversy". Would that work? ] 01:49, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	::::Sounds good but make everything but "U.S." lower case. As I noted in new section below, there are "other" 2004 US Election articles that don't go into much detail about the controversies or link to this page, tad suspicious, we should combine such pages? We should add links to this page on those pages too after we rename this page? How did the "in progress" seemingly tangential election article get started? ] 02:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	2004 US President Election Complaints?
	] 12:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	==Voting Machine Humor Section==

	Is this section really needed? It seems a little unrelated to me. Perhaps it should be added to a page on ]? ]

	I agree. It is not necessary to document every idea even remotely connected to the 2004 election. Why not have a section titled, "Opinions of the 2004 election from people who Jacob Winters knows now, but did now know prior to the 2000 election"? Obviously, the line must be drawn somewhere. ]

	I removed it. I didn't see any place to move it to though. ] Nov. 6, 2004

	:The reason it was there is, it highlights the popular antipathy and distrust of the machines. The animation did not have a machine showing a bush supporter randomly voting kerry for example. But its borderline. I think it has a place. I'd like to hear what others feel too. ] 02:02, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	==Exit poll section==
	We should put these figures on the page:

	*Wisconsin
	**Bush plus 4%
	*Pennnsylvannia
	**Bush plus 5%
	*Ohio
	**Bush plus 4%
	*Florida
	**Bush plus 7%
	*Minnesota
	**Bush plus 7%
	*New Hampshire
	**Bush plus 15%
	*North Carolina'
	**Bush plus 9%
	To show why it's such a hot topic. We should also calculate the statistical likilihood that this happened by chance. Does anyone know the sample size of the exit polls, or the error margin? ] \| ] 23:13, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

	Um, what do those numbers mean? If we are going to add it, it's going to need it to be a little clearer. ]

	:Way ahead of ya, thats already in the article, and analysed and sourced. ] 01:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	== We Should Combine This Page With The "Other" 2004 US Election Pages ==

	I just noticed there are "other" non "in progress" 2004 US election pages that don't go into much detail about any of the controversies (or have links). Should an effort be undertaken to combine the pages or share the info? Currently the page ] is linked to from the Main Page/front door. ] 01:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ''(links fixed - FT2)''
	:Which pages are you thinking of? ] 02:02, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
	::] and the senate and house election pages too. ] 02:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	Clarification, I meant to say there were discrepencies between the "in progress" election page and the non in progress pages (presidental, house, senate), not "this" allegations page. I.E. differences between these two pages ] and ] and the senate and house pages too. That presidential article is currently the election page linked to from the Main Page/Front Door.... There is no reason that page needs to have a comma in its title ] 02:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	Those other pages have their own purposes:
	*] is a general article on the election, so it covers the election issues, bush, kerry, the various debates, media views, etc etc etc.
	*] was the article used to track the election on the day, and was updated "live" as the election proceeded. I'm not sure its significance now except as a moment by moment history of the day.
	*This article relates to one specific and clearly defined issue, namely evidence related to claims made both by others external to Misplaced Pages, or referenced to on other pages, of iregularities in the debate or improper influencing of the result.
	This is not a discussion of the election, neither is the election article a full summary of evidence of irregularities. They're connected though but separate. Hope that helps. ] 16:38, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	New Title suggestion by ] ''moved to "Title" section. ]''

	==Title Change==

	Title changed to "2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities" ] 17:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	:This title doesn't work:
	:# It doesn't follow Misplaced Pages style for article titles ("Election" shouldn't be capitalized).
	:# It's POV to imply that there ''were'' irregularities. By contrast, "controversies", "disputes", "allegations" and "charges" are examples of words that are acceptable because they make clear the contested status of the issues addressed.
	:# Although this one's harder to deal with, I'd like to see a title that's more precise as to the nature of the controversies or whatever they're called. For example, one controversy in the election was whether to repeal Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000, but that's not what's meant here.
	: How about: "2004 U.S. election voting controversies"? ] 04:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::I believe "irregularities" is appropriate from a statistical analysis perspective. The title is not saying these irregularities are definitely from fraud, it's simply pointing to apparent factual irregularities in the data, people are free to disagree by offering other view points that might explain them away. Also, check the talk history, we discussed this title for more than a little while. ] 04:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:::You're right that the word "irregularities" is defensible from a statistician's perspective, but most people aren't statisticians. Most people (or at least many people) would take "irregularities" as indicating some impropriety, whether from fraud or from innocently malfunctioning machines. The title has been under discussion for only three days; I did read this entire Talk page before commenting, but few things on Misplaced Pages can ever be regarded as set in stone, and certainly not after three days. ] 05:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::::Irregularities just means there's data that needs an explanation, either there was fraud or we/someone will gain knowledge of improved exit polling techniques or any number of other explanations. I think most people would say there was little about this election that was regular. Exit polling is a good check and balance against fraud, it should not be discounted (e.g. so it can be used and relied upon the next time). Does wikipedia operate on the basis of a concrete definition of a word or upon perception? Maybe we could define irregularity at the top of the article to allay your concerns? Perhaps the ] article needs more details with actual mathematical techniques included and this article could link to that as well? "Exit polling" would be more appropriate. ] 05:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:::::If you want to put the focus on arguably anomalous data that need an explanation, how about "2004 U.S. election voting questions"? ] 05:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::::::I voted for just "controversies" originally, so others will have to do any further defending of "irregularities". Though what is more anomalous and irregular than exit polling data in every swing state disagreeing with the results to bush's benefit in each case? The odds of that happening by chance are pretty low apparently. We could add "data" before "irregularities" but that sounds worse as a title perhaps. The diebold information is more than a question, it's a controversy so we can't remove that. ] 05:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	See below, I've asked Kevin Baas if he can work another wonder like he did with the current maps, on exit vs popular voting from other elections and issues too. ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	==Include non-voting irregularities from the election?==

	Zen-master commented out the sections related to different areas of non-vote irregularities, on the basis they "cluttered up the point of the article and was inappropriately located here". I can see his point, and agree the article is cleaner as a result. But nonetheless knowledge and information pertaining to election questions has been lost. As Zen-master says, ''"inappropriately located here"'' ... where should evidenced and supported matters such as these be put? ''(the original text is , see sections 3 and 4)'' ] 17:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	:Good question, I agree it should be put somewhere. I guess my point of commenting it out was that it's not relevant to a article about election fraud/vote rigging controversies as it's at best a tangential issue, and there is little way to conclusively "prove" one way or the other, all u need is the image and either you believe the lump under the President's suit was a listening device or something else like a bullet proof vest or just a crease. I personally believe they can make listening devices a lot smaller than that, but most importantly I believe any debate listening device controversy is a few orders of magnitude smaller scale of importance than potential election fraud, so we should focus this article on that.
	::Makes sense to me. I'd go with that view. ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:We could create an article about the 3 Prez + 1 VP debates during the 2004 election? And add a controversy sub section to that? Are transcripts to the presidential debates public domain? ] 04:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::Already exists at ] and, despite its title, it does include the VP debates. ] 04:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:::Excellent, then we should just create a controversy section there and move the commented out information? (that article already has images of the bush bulge and kerry object controversies). We could probably do a massive categorization and multiple linking amongst all the 2004 election articles? ] 05:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::::That too already exists. I haven't compared the information that was at one point in this article, but it would be worthwhile for you or someone to examine ] and see if anything about the bulge or the pen hasn't been covered. ] 05:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:Any news on this yet? ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	==Request for information==

	Does anyone know a way to get a map showing the differences between (exit poll figures) and (official votes cast)? The question's sparked by the maps added by ], what I'm looking for (and haven't seen yet) is a similar map. Anyone got any ideas? I believe theres already a link on the page sourcing some exit poll and final vote figures for different states, but I dont know if its sufficient.

	It would be helpful to show comparative maps of the difference between voting according to exit polls, and voting according to machine, and compare that to a map picking out swing and nonswing (or republican and democrat) states. ] 18:12, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	:I think this would be wonderfull! It would also be nice if this could be broken down by county in states with anomalous discrepencies (>=4%), if at all possible. ] \| ] 21:32, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

	I heard somewhere that there was a correlation between accuracy of initial exit polls and whether or not the county used electronic voting (or maybe a specific type of electronic voting)... anyone know anything about this or just wishful thinking? --] 21:37, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	The complaints and insinuations about exit polling are unfounded. ] 22:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	]071404, I am not convinced. -- ] 00:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	It's a good job that we aren't arbitrating which of your POV's are "right", so much as summarising relevant public domain information which could be used to gain a deeper understanding of the issue then. ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	==NPOV question==

	One user added an NPOV tag, citing that it was "very anti-bush" and did not contain their responses.

	I have removed this tag, my reasons being basically, this is not an advocacy article. It does not take sides. It lists certain statements, depositions, sourced facts and verified matters which taken together are evidence for or against claims that some irregularities may have occurred. So the objection that one side has not yet posted an advocacy rebuttal is irrelevant. This article is not discussing the controversy, it is summarising the documentary, expert, testimonial and forensic evidence upon which any such controversy would be based.

	On occasion personal statements by individuals (including Mr Bush) are included, where necessary the article also attempts to summarise points for and against the reliability of such statements, as evidence. (A couple of times this has been done by noting the statement was made by a Kerry supporter or a Bush supporter, so that its POV if any can be assessed by the reader)

	Thus the criteria for this article is not "what each side says", and no responses by either "side" are needed to make it neutral. The neutrality criteria is (1) that the information contained must be accurate capable of verification, and must be sourced, and (2) that evidence of irregularities and evidence that there were not irregularities are both fairly represented. Any item listed in this evidence which later turns out to be incorrect or suspect as to accuracy, should be removed or updated.

	Should any person on either side wish to add any kind of ''evidence'' that the election was not in fact irregular, ''evidence'' that the voting machines were in fact not subject to irregularities, ''evidence'' that any item on this article is inaccurate, or ''evidence'' that any expert statement is implausible and suspect, then that should be added to this article. ] 17:21, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	:Are people broadly ok with that? ''(FT2)''

	:::(late note: section added for official viewpoints and responses, on reflection I think is a good idea, thanks Lowellian. ] 17:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

	::I am very happy with that! :) ] \| ] 20:48, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)


	==Exit poll - vote count discrepancies==
	I noticed this was mentioned above, but it really deserves a section. I created the images for it in Flash 5. (i.e. i have them in vector graphics format) If anyone wants the .fla's or any thing that flash exports, i can email them. Checking out the exit polls here: (which unfortunately one has to do some math to get an estimate on bush-kerry votes) I noticed that the sample size for ohio was 2,020; for florida was 2,862; and for new hampshire was 1,883. Those should give a pretty accurate prediction. Without even doing the math I can tell that these discrepancies are way outside the margin of error. Less than 14,000 people were polled in the U.S., so assuming equal population distribution, we should expect these to be some of the most accurate polls. But what are the populations? We should gather sample size data, population data, poll data, so we can make statistical maps. ] \| ] 00:23, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	:Nice work KB, thats better than I imagined in terms of information. The only problem is, theres no official source for the data, and there needs to be, otherwise the images could be anyones imagination. The data doesnt have to be processed as you used it, but it must be the raw data you used so that someone else could process it and agree and ... well, you know what I mean :) And needs to be something that has an official source (or sources) really.

	:My other request is a copy of the data you used, I want to try something too. What I would like is a table with column 1 = state, columns 2 3 and 4 = popular votes (election result) GWB/JK/Other, columns 5 6 and 7 = exit polls GWB/JK/Other. Paste it on my talk page if you like, comma separated. Can you?

	:If however you ''really'' want a challenge, can you source and put together 3 more similar maps and matching tables of reported vote vs exit polls?
	:* the 1996 presidential election
	:* the 2000 presidential election
	:* some other matter (senate races? local dogcatcher?) which was voted on nation-wide on the same day in Nov 2004, and which the same voters would have voted on. (The least connected to the presidency the better, so any voting for county or state officers is more useful than voting for senate, etc)
	:Basically the same simple table for those too, again with links for the source data.

	:My reason here is, I think it would be useful to check how exit polls and actual votes compared in 1996 (before voting machines really took off), 2000 (1st widespread use and 1st allegations of machine issues) and also 2004 (some other universal election NOT the presidency held at the same time). Were they good predictors in other elections? Which states and what types of variations arose? Was it random? How do variations of popular/exit poll compare if you put the presidential vote and some other simultaneous vote side by side which was held simultaneously on the same machines, same voters? This would be important to the article because its evidence for "How well did popular vote and exit polls track each other elsewhere, both different time, and different election issue".

	::You forgot to sign your post, so I couldn't respond on your talk page. I got the vote count from the ] page, and the exit polls from source cited in the article. The only source I'm aware of for state exit polls is CNN, but the GWB/JK percentages have to be derived from other stats (such as male/female, I have the impression is the most common) as has been done in this article. You can also get sample sizes there. BTW, can someone make an excel spreadsheat for all this info? That would be really usefull. We could also link to it in the article, for public domain. ] \| ] 20:12, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	==Case studies of states==
	Perhaps have section that study particular states, such as Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvannia?
	And speaking of Florida, how do we put this into the article?: ] \| ] 00:52, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	I am hugely supportive of that idea KB, I think even if lets say Diebold or Op-scan occurs in multiple states, the evidence we need to build will still be dependent upon calculating on a per-county basis of expected/registered voters versus actual votes and compare them to distribution of e-voting machines and types. --] 01:24, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	Sure '''sounds''' like kizzle wants to do original research. No POV there of course. ] 03:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	combining research done by others into one central article is not original research. I'm not going to Florida door-by-door and asking if they registered to vote. Hence the multiple citations on this page. --] 03:44, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	Yes, state by state would be useful, but only insofar as it wouldn't just be a regurgitation of other more general information. If there is genuinely specific information about a satte that's not part of the more general article then that would be a good way to do it. (And maybe if the maps get too big, a section for "maps related to voting issues" too?) ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	==Democratic abuse?==

	Why is there no discussion of Democratic attempts to abuse the system? Examples are numerous and rampant, yet no mention?

	If you have cited evidence please contribute :) --] 06:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:Feel free to add such info if it exists. The philidelphia one has been debunked. Also realize the much much greater potential for fraud from hackable voting machines, this is much more serious than the regular "they BOTH do it" sort of thing. Ideally no one should cheat, but that belief is no longer cultivated it seems.
	:My question is, if there is evidence of massive fraud in favor of republicans would the bush whitehouse arrest and charge those responsible? Would they really? I'd have utmost respect for them if they did.
	:Let me be the first to call "do over" for the 2004 US election in at least the 10-12 swing states, if not everywhere. ] 06:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	==NPOV tag==

	I have added an <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag. It can be removed once this article is sufficiently expanded to reflect all viewpoints. For example, the article currently includes a great deal of content expounding on the viewpoint of one side with much shorter descriptions of rebuttals from the other side. Note also there is a space at the bottom of the page for the viewpoints of several groups that has not yet been completed. Once most sides' viewpoints have been added, not just in the bottom section but throughout the article, I would fully support removing the <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag. ]—] (])] 07:13, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:Those empty headers shouldn't be included at all. See ]. When someone writes an appropriate addition, the person writing it should just add it. It's also not consistent with the way Misplaced Pages works to want the tag to stay on until something "has been added". The passive voice is often a bad idea but particularly so here. There's no one whose responsibility it is to add anything. If you think something more should be said, go ahead and post it (to the article or to this talk page) and see what other people think. You can't justify the NPOV tag by expressing the desire that something else be added by an unspecified someone.

	:I believe that the NPOV tag and the empty headers should all be removed. (Oops, passive voice. Well, my excuse is that I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'll hold off from deleting those things myself until other people have a chance to chime in.) ] 08:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	Regarding "You can't justify the NPOV tag by expressing the desire that something else be added by an unspecified someone.": If the ] and ] articles presented all the claims of flat-Earthers, with no rebuttals from the other side (I am not claiming this is the current state of these two articles; I am just saying that ''if'' this were so), and you wandered by and saw the pages but were not someone familiar enough with the physics to write the justification for a round Earth yourself, I think you would still nevertheless be justified in adding an <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag to the articles and keeping it on the articles indefinitely until someone properly qualified in the physics wrote a section answering the claims of the flat-Earthers. ]—] (])] 09:08, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	And this would apply in the opposite case as well, if the articles cited above completely dismissed and refused to even mention flat Earth claims. Articles that are POV should be NPOVed for all viewpoints, and if necessary, a tag should be added to prompt editors sufficiently versed in the subject to do so. ]—] (])] 09:11, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:I disagree. There are several articles I know of that I consider biased, some in the way they state things and others in what they omit. We're all volunteers, though, and I don't have time to work on everything. It would be irresponsible for me to slap the NPOV tag on everything I don't like, without even having made an effort to correct the situation.

	::Theres a formal "Wiki" statement of what NPOV means in an evidence-based article above, but as "flat earth" is an "argument by analogy" let me give a less formal kind of reason why I believe it's wrong.
	::Not every statement of fact needs the associated press comments to make them "valid" or "neutral". Provided there is no significant error or omission in fact or evidence, the facts stand alone. If there are omitted facts, thats what counts. Think of it like court and the reader as the judge, he doesn't need to know what this or that party's opinion is, or if they claim without backing evidence that the evidence against them is all meaningless. He wants the evidence on the table, both sides, and if they have anything to say let them add further evidence of their own to be weighed, not mere opinions. Evidence, not opinion. I don't think anything here taken one at a time are beyond the ability of the average person to comprehend or even to check for themselves if they wish, so the ''"Flat Earth needs a physicists answer to be neutral"'' argument to my mind is inapplicable. This is an informal description, the previous one is the important statement regarding NPOV, this (whilst not intended to be rigorous), I hope helps. ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:In this particular case, the discussion on the talk page doesn't justify the tag. We have no reason to believe that there even exists any material that might go under those empty headers. For example, has either of the two major parties yet issued an official comment on the subject? I don't know. I'd find it quite plausible that they're both lying low for now, waiting to see which way the winds blow. The Democrats might not want to go out on a limb and later find that the current evidence could be refuted. The Republicans might decide as a tactical matter that they'd give the story more publicity by denouncing it. Of course, if either party has said anything substantive, it should be included. The tag would be justified if and only if a user had made a good-faith effort to expand the article appropriately and had encountered resistance. ] 09:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:Theres a mistake in some of the above logic. The sections referred to are not "empty". They are each making the positive non-trivial assertion "at this time, there has been no significant formal comment". There is a strong, although unproven, likelihood, that there will be further valid information to go into each of these subsections at some point, and the sections are therefore not idle, they serve as a reminder to some wiki-ist to add them when appropriate. Speaking informally I'd be amazed if there weren't ongoing developments or additions to these various responses eventually, and adding the sections is a good guide to any such contributor of a suitable section for them to keep the article "clean" and in good quality. ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	::It's a question of how to interpret the phrase "''(none yet)''" under a header. You're interpreting it to mean what it's now been changed to: a statement that the party has made no official comment. (I'm not sure that the rewording is true in this instance; it's certainly something to be checked.) The other interpretation is the one Lowellian gave, which I agreed with. Lowellian said, "Note also there is a space at the bottom of the page for the viewpoints of several groups that has not yet been completed." ] 19:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	I think it's fine if the NPOV tag is put on the page, it will inspire additional beneficial clean ups. I disagree with them but I suppose a disagreement on scope (what the article should be about) can be considered a POV violation? I absolutely do not believe the "acts of violence" stuff belongs on the page, it's possible republicans did that to themselves to offset any expected vote machine controversy backlash. ] 21:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	==Quick questions and quick votes==

	(1) One of the section titles was changed a couple of days ago from "Voting machine companies with political ties" to "Voting machine companies with political ties to George W. Bush". Whilst at present no voting machine company has been stated or is alleged to have major political ties with Kerry, the possibility does exist. So although this is factually accurate, I'm concerned whether this new title gives the impression of POV. Votes for keeping current title or reverting to previous one? ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
	:'''Previous'''
	:# ] \| ] 20:20, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
	:'''Current'''

	(2) Source (or at least county name) needs adding for the 77% county in Florida? ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	(3) Good introductory quote found, where should it go? For now I've put it at the top.

	(4) The text accompanying the maps need a couple of minor gaps filled in before it's really solid evidence:
	:* The maps don't show "areas where no auditability was available", so there might not be evidence right now in the article to support the statement that those areas correlate.
	:* The phrase "potentially higher" might need tightening up.
	:* The underlying data needs some kind of source.
	::exit polls: CNN, vote count: wikipedia ] \| ] 20:20, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
	:* Some kind of support's needed for the 10 ^ -6 odds.
	::We need an excel spreadsheet as discussed in the vote count - exit poll discrepancy section, before the calculations can be done rigourously and verifiably. ] \| ] 20:20, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	(Also, the 3rd map has many states in grey, but there isn't a grey on the color key. Should these be white?)
	::Grey is "no data" (yet). The second map just matches the first where there's no data - kind of a cheat, but it's bound to be close, it shouldn't introduce confusion, and it saves time for now. ] \| ] 20:20, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	(5) A lot of introduction and background information was removed for the sake of making the article more streamlined, but I'm concerned too much got removed. I've often found that in a topic like this, a section of background summary is useful. So I've provisionally edited as follows:
	:* Introductory sentence edited, now describes the article's purpose rather than summarising the article. ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
	:* I've tried to balance the gains during the cleanup with a limited reversion of the background material removed. ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
	:* Last, I've also ''temporarily'' reverted the "scale and significance of issues" because I feel this usefully sets out the potential scale of the issue which may not otherwise be apparent from a schedule of individual evidence.

	These are provisional only - can we briefly discuss and get different views before any editing? ] 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	== acts of violence edits ==

	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 216.153.214.94's additions of acts of violence should be part of this page, since their implications fall under the idea of voter suppression, which is already mentioned. ]]] 15:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:Yup - vandals, offices, and Bush's likely wire, seems like these all move to the main election page as being distractions to the main issue of the article. I've also reverted the recent edits from 216.153.214.94, who already has an alert on ].

	:To the author, please discuss matters here before adding stuff like that, as there is a lot of interest here and many points of view to consider. Thanks  ] 16:03, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	== I Don't Like The Scale and Significance of Issues Section ==

	It is written poorly, doesn't really say anything, and seemingly violates NPOV. I was going to clean it up but I didn't know where to begin (I commented it out yesterday but someone undid that). I think it's incorrect to say there is substatial information in the "media" about fraud with this election, where are any citations for that claim? If anything the media have been completely silent on the issue of massive vote fraud. Any scale and significance section should address the much greater potential for fraud from voting machines, in my opinion. What was the original author of that section trying to convey? The florida discrepancies between registered democrat percentages and actual results could be in there or near there, that section could become a one level higher section heading (after being rewritten) that introduces that largest instances of potential fraud? ] 18:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:That was me, Zenmaster, apologies, the history page lets you trace who edited what. I put it back as a temporary thing - I liked your cleanup but was anxious if too much was removed. So I wrote the section above to discuss it and get a consensus if some parts of it were of value. Thanks for the explanation, and Ive moved both up to that section with other comments. ] 21:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:Regarding the section itself, I feel the section is reasonably accurate. I wrote that section originally, and if it doesnt belong or its inaccurate then it needs to go, but for now I'd like discussion 1st, because it may have stuff of value, and subject to discussion, it's factually accurate as best I can see. Specifically:
	::*It says there is substantial comment ''online including online media'' ('''not''' "in the media"). You might've misread this.
	::*Should address the potential scale? I figured that would be obvious, I focussed on how much would really be needed to make a difference, I saw 500 votes in florida not 2 million votes in texas (so to speak) as the "significance", because thats the size you need to get wrong to affect an election.
	::*As for the size of the whole thing, anyone reading the article can draw that conclusion - i didnt feel right pushing it at them that way, its enough to go over this much evidence this thoroughly.

	:Hope that helps, I have provisionally removed the NPOV tag, again thats no criticism, its just I am hoping these points make it clear that it was "online" not "printed media" and you might've misread it. But yes, we do need discussion of those sections. ] 21:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	::Here specifically is what I don't like about that section, the way it's written seems rather POV, words like "teething" and "troubles" are out of place, and "irregularities due to these concerns were probably insignificant compared to the number of votes cast" seems to be in opposition to what the first part of that paragraph is saying, big deal about "comment" online -- this article should focus on statistical analysis of the data irregularities -- not on comments, the entire section appears to just be saying "some people are commenting that vote fraud is significantly plausible". That really isn't capturing the scale or significance of the issues. ] 21:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:::As a mark of respect while you were writing that, I added a tag to mark that section as being discussed. Gotta go out, will review your points later when I get back :) ] 21:23, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
	::::I realized the page was headed for protection so I cleaned up the significance section a bit beforehand :-) It currently captures what I think it should capture and leaves in the heart of what was there before I believe. If you disagree with any of it we can change it. ] 22:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	I like it, the only thing I'd add is an extra sentence or so, that explains due to the US electoral college system, it isn't the popular vote, but the electoral college vote which counts, and therefore in the past (ref to 2000 election) sometimes only a few hundred votes in a critical location have been enough to swing the entire national election. Therefore small discrepancies in voting as well as big ones are important, as an election fraud could be perpetrated with a few thousand votes in the right place. To my mind thats whats left missing. '''Comments? Agree?''' ] 00:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	==Scope of the article==
	The article devotes most of its space to possible miscounting of votes cast, but it also refers to ], some of which occurs before Election Day. It may be hard to draw lines here, but I suggest that the article should be about reasons for concern that the officially announced totals don't reflect the decisions of the people who were entitled to register and vote.
	*'''Included''': Voter registration problems and disputes, like the Ohio ruling that rejected some registration forms because they weren't on 80-pound stock, or the cases of voter registration forms that went astray; difficulties in obtaining or submitting absentee ballots; activities intended to keep voters away, such as the distribution of fliers in minority neighborhoods stating if there was rain on Tuesday then people could vote on Wednesday.
	*'''Excluded''': Controversies (like the Bush bulge and the Kerry pen) not directly related to voting; campaign finance issues, including complaints and counter-complaints about ]s (except complaints about, for example, a 527 group engaging in voter suppression or the like); campaign improprieties, ranging all the way from the theft of yard signs to the break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters in Toledo. (See .)
	This division seems to reflect what most people understand the article to be about. Things like the Toledo break-in are "controversies" or "irregularities" but aren't what the article is about. That's why I think that the title should be something like "2004 U.S. election voting controversies". The title we eventually settle on should reflect a consensus of what's to be included and what's excluded. ] 20:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:I can see the point of that. Issues that meant the vote tally might have not reflected the decision of the people '''in''', and issues that may have affected the decision of the people (albeit in an unfair/unacceptable manner) '''out'''? Is that broadly your suggestion? I could go with that. ] 21:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	::Yes, that's the kind of distinction I have in mind. ] 21:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::"irregularities" refers to statistical problems with the results and exit poll data, nothing more. The title you propose isn't bad, though "voting" may open up the article to excluded category stuff. ] 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:::The statistical problems are the discrepancies between exit polls and the officially reported totals, right? The only reason to pay attention to those discrepancies is the possibility that the official totals are wrong. If so, the irregularity would be that the machine didn't produce an accurate result. That kind of irregularity is part of the controversy, because people are raising charges about the machines. I think "2004 U.S. election voting controversies" would include these statistical issues. If you think it might suggest to some people other issues, that aren't actually covered, we could put a scope note at the beginning, referring readers to ] or whatever other article(s) might be appropriate. ] 21:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:It does look like this article will be on voting issues, only, with "other election controversies" or "campaign controversies" in a separate article. So a cleanup between the 2 might be good if thats how we go, although this article's mostly on voting anyway. Separately, I want to steer clear of any word that suggests a conclusion (eg "conspiracy" or "fraud") in the title, its a neutral evidence summary is all. Discussion? ] 00:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	==Side note==
	Just a side note, watch countdown tonight on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann, he's going to be covering it today and tommorow. --] 20:38, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	What time? ] \| ] 20:55, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	8pm ET... not sure if its going to replayed at 8PT for west coast. --] 21:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	==Excel Spreadsheet==
	I'm working on a template.
	Anyone want to claim responsibility for aggregating a particular type of data? ] \| ] 20:58, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	:'''Uploaded base excel spreadsheet to .''' ] \| ] 21:32, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	:I've filled in the popular vote count and uploaded. My totals don't match wiki's totals, though. ] \| ] 23:55, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	:Does someone want to gather for the polls from CNN, top down, and someone else do bottom-up? ] \| ] 23:55, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	:And send the excel file to me through email. (You don't need to be able to upload it.), and I'll copy and paste the data. ] \| ] 23:57, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	:KB i'm going to be off for today, if you provide a little detail as to what I should do, I'll help fill in tommorow during the day.--] 00:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	I'd love a copy of spreadsheet data as you produce it :) ] 00:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	== adding incident + discussion of organizational layout ==

	Keith Olbermann reports "the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that officials in Warren County, Ohio, had “locked down” its administration building to prevent anybody from observing the vote count there.

	Suspicious enough on the face of it, the decision got more dubious still when County Commissioners confirmed that they were acting on the advice of their Emergency Services Director, Frank Young. Mr. Young had explained that he had been advised by the federal government to implement the measures for the sake of Homeland Security.

	Gotcha. Tom Ridge thought Osama Bin Laden was planning to hit Caesar Creek State Park in Waynesville."


	I wanted to add this, but I'm not sure where it would go. I think the layout of the page needs to be discussed, as I feel somewhat its starting to take a feel of randomness to it. Any thoughts on whether it needs to be re-organized at all, and if so what it should look like? --] 21:29, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:I don't like the current organization very much. I agree with you about the feeling of randomness. One possibility would be to have one article about electronic voting machines and one article about all other voting controversies. They'd link to each other, of course, and the one about controversies in general would summarize the facts about voting machines, without presenting the maps or otherwise getting into such detail. That would make it easier for readers to find specific topics. If the subjects are all to remain in one article, the beginning should be rewritten; the quotation about machines should be moved down to the machines section, and the reader given a more general overview of the scope of the article. ] 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	A category of 2004 election issues? Surely it can be fitted into one article? Maybe with a subsidiary article for "detailed list of evidence" summarised in the main article? So we can offload stuff like dozens of maps, or dozens of incidents, to a 2nd article thats non-controversial, and keep the main article more concise? Would that work? ] 00:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	== Acts of violence ==

	As long as this article is titled "2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities", the acts of violence fall under this topic. ] 22:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:The acts of violence you keep adding fall under the category of voter intimidation, which is already in the list of key issues. ]]] 22:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	::Did actual violence occur? I know there were some republican challengers etc present, but didn't know anything about violence. ]] 22:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:::Nothing reported inside voting places, all stuff cited was external to voting, though tangentially related. ] 22:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	I'm not aware there was significantly more violence than previous elections, as it says under "misrepresentations" (or did till commented out), stuff like that was agreed to be excluded. ] 00:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	== Protection ==

	Rex (216.153.214.94), please do not keep on adding stuff to the article when there's consent that your edits are inappopriate; rather, discuss your proposed edits here on the talk page. Thanks. -- ] 22:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:This latest episode by Rex/216 has been added to the evidence in the arbitration proceeding. See ]. We've now entered our fourth month of adding evidence. ] 22:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	== Kerry surrendered ==

	In view of the fact that Kerry already surrendered the election, can anything now be done, even if criminal rigging occured? Especially in view of the fact that the "original" vote totals can't be recovered from Diebold machines? ]] 22:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:I read on another message board that there is nothing in the Constitution that makes a consession stick. Gore took back his consession in 2000 briefly. The key is these problems would have to be resolved before state elections officials certify their results, and definitely prior to when the electoral college meets December 12th I believe. After that point it's definitely too late. Currently there is no evidence of massive fraud investigations/indictments pending or a massive democratic challenge, but it's still possible. ] 22:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::Concur. A concession is not legally binding. There is, however, a deadline. ] \| ] 22:43, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	:::I see. I just don't think the Kerry campaign really wants to cause a huge uproar by launching a challenge. And, again, if a challenge succeeds, there's no way to get the "correct" totals out of those Diebold machines in Ohio/Florida. ]] 23:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::::There are all sorts of extra-legal consequences that can be inflicted by both the magnitude of validity of the charge and the amount of people that hear of it. That is a few steps ahead though. We must only worry about bringing together the evidence. --] 23:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:::Ideally law enforcement agencies would be the ones that prosecuted justice in the case of massive election fraud (if true), but I admit to being rather doubtful since the fox is guarding the hen house. If the evidence is not overwhelming enough to convince law enforcement to act, then there isn't much kerry's campaign can do. Perhaps all we can do is steadily work towards auditability and traceability for future elections and put pressure on voting machine companies. I already called a "do over" if that helps, though the logistics of a do over are likely impossibly large. What happens if a state elections board is unable to certify their results as accurate? That seems like an accurate description of the state of things in at least a few states. ] 23:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::::Action will only be taken when there is public pressure, no earlier. In order to generate public pressure, they must be aware of what happened first. A full recount is unlikely, more like a case brought to the supreme court or anything generated from the court of public opinion which does have power given enough concensus and motivation. Look at the 60's civil rights movement. --] 23:50, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	Luckily thats speculation and controversy, not related to the evidence gathering (both sides) within this article :) ] 00:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	==Stuff AGREED BY CONSENSUS to do, when PROT tag comes off==

	:''(this section contains a LIST of reasonable edits to process once the PROT tag is removed. These are edits which have gained broad (> 50% but not necessarily 100%) agreement as reasonable by those who contributed and voted on them. It does not contain the edits, but just an indication what's been agreed)''



	== new format ==

	Please feel free to modify the following post to formulate an alternative organizational layout. Edit away! --] 23:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	----

	# Background

	# Pre-ElectionControversies
	## Voter Suppression
	### Long Lines
	## Vandalism
	## Blah
	# Post-Election Controversies
	## Regional Issues
	### Florida
	#### Op-Scan vs. E-Touch
	#### Blah
	### Ohio
	#### Gahanna, Franklin Co.
	### California
	### Anywhere Else
	## Electronic Voting
	### Diebold
	#### Republican ties
	#### Insecure hardware/software
	#### Certification controversies
	### General electronic voting problems
	## Exit Poll versus Vote Count discrepency
	# External Links
	## Specific incidents of discrepency (emphasis on facts)
	## External analysis of data (analysis of these facts)
	## Related articles

	----

	I believe we kind of decided in the talk pages above that we wouldn't include "pre-election" controversies and vandalism in this article at least. The 2004 prez debate article already has info on the debate controversies (bush supposeded wire, kerry pen). The point of this article really is evidence of massive vote fraud, need to separate small scale issues from the massive potential for fraud with no paper trail or auditable voting machines. Small scale incidents are not likely to change the outcome of the election after the fact, really only machine fraud or hacked machines evidence can do that. Though, I am not saying such information does not have its place on wikipedia somewhere, I just don't believe this article is the right location. Grouping such issues together implies they are of the same "scale" when clearly they are not. Voter suppression information then is only relevant for large scale incidents. ] 23:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::Well, If we are going to hold to that I believe we should rename this article to "2004 U.S. Election Voting controversies" (who needs the irregularities anyways)

	That is what this page is really about anyways. Otherwise, if we keep 2004 U.S. Election controversies, I would have to say that those debate controversies would technically fit under the title. --] 23:36, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:I think that a few topics deserve some degree of prominence: exit poll - vote count discrepancy, long lines (this may seem banal, but it really makes a dramatic difference), die-bold, machine problems. ] \| ] 23:34, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

	::how about now? --] 23:38, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	:::Looks fine. Except long-lines being a pre-election controversy? ] \| ] 23:49, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
	:::: Pre- is on or before Nov 2 (or actual election process), Post is after... does that work? --] 23:56, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
	::::: I'm not sure that works, because a lot of the things in the post section really belong in the pre section. There was controversy about the die-bold machines years ago, it's just noone thought that anyone would have the idiocy/audacity to actually use them. Maybe we can do away with pre/post? ] \| ] 00:00, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
	::::::Whatever you think. --] 00:23, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	:irregularities was a term added because of statistical analysises. I didn't like it originally but it is important to note there is a mathematical basis in fact for the belief in serious discrepancies. Certainly the title needs to be more explanatory than just the catch all word "controversies". I propsed "data irregularities" earlier. ] 23:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::I don't disagree with you KB, I just think "2004 U.S. Election Voting controversies and data irregularities" is a bit long. 2004 U.S. Election Voting controversies is enough to distinguish it from any other article and can be applied to all information in this article, data irregularities does not help in this process of distinction IMHO, but if you want to keep it i'm ok with it. --] 23:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

	Let me clearly state that I DO NOT support any of the proposed titles in this section, the current title is better. You guys are also getting WAY ahead of yourselves with the proposed formatting (i do not agree to it). The current title does not include "voting" in it; we spent a lot of time arriving at the current title yesterday, do not discount that discussion please.

	Also, I do not believe vandalism should be included, do you think it should? "Voting Machines" should be a top level section with different types of machines then regional issues underneath that. Though, what is wrong with the current format exactly (please list your concerns relative to the current formatting)? The point of this article is about the potential for vote fraud and significant mathematical evidence of such, it's ''NOT''' a place for listing all election controversies. How do you plan to move current information not include in your proposed format (currently there is no place for exit poll manipulation and registration vs results discrepancies listed)? ] 00:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:I don't think kizzle intends to obscure or excise information. i agree that it feels kind of unorganized. Probably because of the speed at which all the info was put together and the sheer volume of information. Just looking at the TOC, it doesn't seem so unorganized, thou. Nor does it look that much different than kizzle's original suggestion, after pre/post is removed and the headers promoted. ] \| ] 00:11, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

	::Zen, first of all JML and I just agreed that the layout seemed a bit random, thus I proposed an alternative organizational layout. By all means if you have disagreements please voice them, I'm not trying to force this down your throat, its just a suggestion. Secondly, my concerns relative to the current formatting is what exactly is a "Key Issue"? I get the feeling when I read the article that it is hopping around to many different issues without a clear organization.

	::I would think that sorting by region above machine failure will better accommodate the information, as if we use types of machines above regional issues, then we will have to incorporate regional specific incidents outside the top level of types of machines, whereas if we sort by region above types of machines we can accomodate for all information without spillage.

	::In addition, the reason why I wanted to change the name is because I agree with you completely that this article is the "potential for vote fraud and significant mathematical evidence of such", but that is not reflected in the current title, that's why I proposed the alternate. But the main thing is, I'm just offering suggestions, I'm not trying to dictate the course of this article. --] 00:15, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	::Also, I let everyone know that my proposed layout is completely editable, so if I missed something please add it. --] 00:20, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

	:::ok, my bad. It just seemed like a lot of effort was going into your format seemingly without considering raised issues. Also, we should consider cleaning up the parts of the text that are "hopping around", I suspect we will need as large a text cleanup as we need a reformatting, for clarity's sake. Is this what we must do for the protected flag to be released? They are rather separate issues (organization vs reason page was protected) in my opinion, but we should organize and clean up the page anyway. I am weary of modifying your proposed formatting since it would look radically different (more like the current formatting). ;-) ] 00:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::::If you want, copy and paste my layout and modify all you wish, unless you just agree with the current organization. :) But do you get my point though, that if we organize using "Types of Machines" above "Regional Issues", there will be events that do not deal with electronic machines that will have to be sorted by region as well, thus leading to information spillage. If we use "Regional Issues" as a top-level, we won't have to divide by region twice, both under "Types of Machines" and "Non-machine related discrepencies" --] 00:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:06, 6 March 2024

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Untitled

This article was listed for deletion three times.

The result of the first deletion debate was Keep
The result of the second deletion debate was Keep
The result of the third deletion debate was Merge and redirect.

Archives

For archived discussion of this page, please see:

1	Nov 5 2004 - Nov 9 2004
2	Nov 9 2004 - Nov 12 2004
3	Nov 12 2004 - Nov 17 2004
4	Nov 13 2004 - Dec 14 2004
5	Nov 18 2004 - Dec 13 2004 pt2
6	Dec 13 2004 - Jan 10 2005
7	Jan 11 2004 - Feb 14 2005
8	Feb 14 2005 - Oct 19 2005
9	Oct 2005 - Jan 2006
10	Feb 2005 - May 2006
11	May 2006 - March 2008

Categories: