Skip to main content

View Diary: Armando's Challenge, Or The Informed Citizen's Guide To The 2004 Election (389 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK, here's the deal (none)
    We need to strengthen it.  I'd like to know the weakness (personally, I think the layout/discussion of the exit polls kind of sucks).

    So, let's try this.  If you were a freeper, what would you say about this?

    That'll give me a good springboard for improving it tonight and tomorrow.

    •  Clean up typos (none)
      A few places have wrong words, spacing issues, etc.  Do a "find" for the word "pubic"-- you'll definitely want to fix that!

      "They stole it fair and square!"

      by Sandia Blanca on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:05:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You might want to... (none)
      ...take out the editorial comments that are in different sections.  Personally, I like them, but you have enough factual and documented information to make your case.  I'm thinking about how someone reading this (read that: a Republican) might say, "Well, look at where she says, 'Just because these owners of the voting machines are all blatantly partisan Republicans, just because they all seem to be extreme fundamentalists...' She's obviously has an agenda, so I can ignore everything she says."  

      Just a thought.  

      Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

      by Barbara Morrill on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:37:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some suggestions for strengthening... (4.00)
      Take 'em or leave 'em as you see fit, of course!

      Introductory Sections:

      --Maybe call your opening commentary a preface?

      --You might want to remove all references to Armando's challenge in the actual paper itself. I suspect it'll be widely distributed and that reference will confuse those who don't know about dKos.

      --Maybe leave the fraud definitions for the later sections when possible fraud is discussed? I also like the suggestion from above to discuss/summarize the sections with reference to these fraud definitions.

      --I also like the idea of a table of contents

      Setting the Stage:

      --give a reference for the first sentence? Many still don't know Gore got more votes and I'm sure repubs would jump on that statement.

      Taking It One Step Further:

      --I'd suggest a reference or data for the second point, otherwise you might want to remove it. That statement will be jumped on without support.

      --In the point about Hagel, you might want to expand and include the statement (from the WSJ?) that Hagel's victory was the most surprising upset in the country, and as an unknown, overcame something like a 15% deficit in just a few weeks. I could dig up this info for you if you like.

      --The New Mexico point seems less compelling than the others. Maybe cut it and stick to the strongest examples?

      --I'd suggest adding the 16K-vote glitch from Florida in 2000. 16K votes were SUBTRACTED from Gore late on election night and it appears that this directly resulted in FL being called for Bush, yet the so-called glitch has never been explained. I can dig up this info, too, if you like.

      Starting From Behind:

      --Beginning with this section, might it make for a tighter and more compelling case to focus more on Ohio, sort of as a case study? Here and in subsequent sections, you could, for example, discuss the Ohio cases but only refer to/cite the cases from the other states. I can definately see arguments for either approach, though.

      Hope this is helpful...I'll keep going with the other sections...

    •  About the exit poll stats, (none)
      have you seen this professior's short and easy-to-understand article on the topic?

      Perhaps you could call this Prof. Paulos and email to him what you've got for suggestions.  

      He is a proponent of the idea of "innumeracy" as a cause of a great deal of problems in our country.  As he defines it, innumeracy is the mathematical  parallel to "illiteracy."

      Anyway, he has written on the exit poll problem and has a knack for making stats understandable.

      Just trying to be helpful.

      Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

      by Einsteinia on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:52:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Georgia, (none)
      since you said upthread that you'd be doing some edits, here are a few typos I found.  I hope you don't mind my listing them.  Your painstaking work will likely see distribution beyond dkos, so I wanted to help make it as clean as possible.  I truly admire your commitment to your beliefs.  

      p. 2, par 4: There are dozens of websites that seeks [should be "seek"] to compile

      p. 2, par 5:  As you read, you'll realize that the weight of the evidence strong [should be "strongly"] suggests such a conclusion.

      p. 5, par 2: In addition to requiring a verifiable paper trail, the Act also proscribed that "[n]o voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software... [The word should be *"prescribed" because "proscribe" = to forbid or outlaw]

      p. 10, 5th bullet: "malfunction" should be "malfunctioned"

      p. 13, par. 3: Moreover, there is a possibility that absentee allows in Ohio may have been tampered with [should be "ballots"]

      p. 17, bottom:  how many received reasonable notice f [should be "of"] their hearings,

      p. 20, par. 3: the decision to distributed fewer machines ["distribute"]

      p. 20, last par. Why was this "new criteria" [I know "criteria" is part of a quote, but there's a grammatical problem here because "criteria" is a plural noun]

      p. 22, bottom: The highest number of incidents were reported [should be "was," because "number" is singular]

      p. 29, par 2: In a world were ["where"] our voting system isn't privatized

      p. 29, par. 5: the probability that the exit polls were wrong are ["is"] so infinitesimally small

      p. 32, par. 4:  He find the odds ["finds']

      p. 33, par. 1: Did Mitofsky not know more women being sampled?  [insert "were" after "women"]

      p. 33, heading #2: The exit polls were wrong because Bush supports were reluctant to answer.  [should be "supporters"]

      p. 34, par. 1: evidence that Bush supported were discouraged from voting [should be "supporters"]

      p. 39, par. 2: Conyers' question [should be "questions"]

      p. 39, par. 3: The signature of both a Representative and a Senator is required [should be signatures/are]

      p. 40, last par: In his initially filing [should be "initial filing"]

      p. 41, last par: plagues by technicalities ["plagued]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site