Talk:2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities

This article is in need of attention.

This article was listed twice on votes for deletion. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 05:25, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. For a November 2004 deletion debate over the deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy.

Is in [Accuracy_dispute] yes I don't see that sign here. why? Dwarf Kirlston Feb 17

There is no accuracy dispute: None of the article content's accuracy is disputed, nor is the title or existence of the article. Kevin Baas^talk 20:17, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Kevin, as the history section clearly shows, this article's accuracy is highly disputed. User:JMcNamera 13:06, Jan 27, 2006 (GMT)

Maybe that's where your mistake lies, you're looking at the history page for accuracy disputes (If I understand you correctly.) You can't find them there, because there's no medium for them to exist there. You should be looking on the talk page, if you're looking for an accuracy dispute. Kevin Baas^talk 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Archives

For archived discussion of this page, please see:

1	November 5 2004 - November 9 2004
2	November 9 2004 - November 12 2004
3	November 12 2004 - November 17 2004
4	November 18 2004 - December 13 2004
5	November 18 2004 - December 13 2004 part 2
6	December 13 2004 - January 10 2005
7	January 11 2004 - February 14 2005
8	February14 2005 - October 19 2005
9	- 2006.01.25

Anon IPs that have mildly trolled this talk page: 68.107.102.129 05:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If stuff under new has been added please add "- Added" to the title", same with any current passages that have been removed, "- Removed" in the title.

Last thing we need to do, let us aim to archive all entries that already have been added both in New Passages and Possible Passages for Inclusion within the next few days, if you see something that is already on the page, please help out by putting " - Added" to the end of the title of the section. --kizzle 21:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Vote Suppression section

What happened? This section is way out of proportion. It is totally skewed, and needs to be corrected. I'm slapping a pov tag on it. Kevin baas 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read it over and it seems relatively reasonable to me. Could you point out specifically what you find objectionable in it and why? noosphere 17:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, tens of thousands of democratic votes are believed to have been suppressed, whereas only tens of republican votes are said to be suppressed, yet three of the four paragraphs deal w/suppression of republican votes. That's a little out of proportion, don't you think? Kevin baas 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's additional information regarding suppression of Democratic votes I am all for adding it. However, I would not advocate excising information about suppression of Republican votes simply to keep a balance dictated by the size of the allegations.

If the information is relevant we should include it, imo. And it's not like there's a gross imbalance (only two out of six paragraphs in that section mention alleged offenses against Republicans). noosphere 02:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but if the scope of allegations is drastically different between the two parties, that is a key fact this section must be written in accordance with. --kizzle 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, what about just mentioning in the section itself that although every relevant Republican allegation of voter suppression is documented here, there were far more allegations coming from Democrats than Republicans, and citing the appropriate source? noosphere 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Each section should be written in distribution proportional to the number of votes disputed. That is what I am saying. I never mentioned deleting content. I mentioned adding balance to that section which is way off kilter. Kevin baas 03:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't mean to delete content are you talking about adding content in support of Democratic allegations of vote suppression? I'm all for that. Or, if not, what kind of balance are you talking about? noosphere 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the ting is, if we add a four thousand paragraphs on suppression of democratic votes to balance out the four on suppression of republican votes, there will no doubt be quite a bit of trimming to that novel. And after that trimming, probably back down to four paragraphs, there will be no trace of mention of suppression of republican votes, which republicans will balk at, and return us to the original state of affairs... So essentially what I think we need is a rewrite of the section, maybe going to 6 paras if neccessary, that still includes some mention of suppression of republican votes, but is more commensurate to the distribution of irregularities in the physical world. The greater detail of suppression of republican votes can be moved to the main vote suppression article, if not already there, where it will be much more commensurate. I'd suggest a look through the page history to find a pre-skewed version of the section, and to work from that as a basis, saving much time in research and composition. Kevin baas 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

To reiterate my basic point in regards your question, the main issue I see here, when fixing this problem, is the conflict between balance within the section and balance between the size of the section and the rest of the article. The second will inevitably be done by someone if the first is done without offloading some of the current text to the vote suppression article. So there's really no way to reconcile both of the balances that I am talking about without ultimately cutting back on the discussion of suppression of republican votes in this, summary article, and moving it to the main vote suppression article. Kevin baas 17:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

the overwhelming majority of the content of the article is about alleged suppression of democrat votes. two or three paragraphs - which are really little more than two or three sentences - about republican votes suppressed, is clearly not POV, nor out of balance with the body of the article. this strikes me as an attempt to suppress any mention of suppression of republican votes, which is POV. articles are not tagged as "POV" simply because there are a few sentences in the body of the article that do not conform to the overall POV of the article. suggesting that because a *section* of the article deals more with one POV than the majority POV of the article, as justification for tagging it, is unreasonable. furthermore, if you will direct your attention to the POV tag, it is for *whole articles* not sections. either the article is POV, or it is NPOV. slapping the tag on one section is a misapplication. Anastrophe 18:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You said "the overwhelming majority of the content of the article is about alleged suppression of democrat votes.". That is not neccessarily an objection. It happens to be the case that the overwhelming majority (we're talking 98-99%) of irregularities found in the 2004 presidential election favored George W. Bush, and by another measure, the overwhelming majority of disputed votes likewise favor George W. Bush. In order for this article to be neutral, the content must be in the same proportion as the empirical (i.e. commensurate). For further clarification of this concept, you can take a look at my user page's section on NPOV. I agree with you wholeheartedly that "suggesting that because a *section* of the article deals more with one POV than the majority POV of the article, as justification for tagging it, is unreasonable", and I will be on your side, vociferously objecting, when someone makes that suggestion. Each section, ofcourse, should have it's content distributed irrespective of the distribution of the content in the overall article, and with respect only to the distribution of phenomena in the empirical world. Each section formed independantly like this, on every scale (such that paragraphs in sections are likewise commensurate, and sections are formed in due proportion to each other), leads to a well-balanced article, not affected by POVs, but indicative of the subject of the article as it exists in the empirical world. Kevin baas 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"In order for this article to be neutral, the content must be in the same proportion as the empirical (i.e. commensurate)." since we are discussing a controversy and irregularities, the article does not deal with the empirical - otherwise, the article wouldn't exist, as there wouldn't be a dispute about the number of votes cast. certainly, it can be said that more people hold the opinion that more democratic votes were supressed; that opinion may be correct, but it is not yet indisputable - again, the article wouldn't exist if the facts were indisputable. for example, you said above, "Well, tens of thousands of democratic votes are believed to have been suppressed, whereas only tens of republican votes are said to be suppressed,[...]". can you provide a citation for that assertion - that only tens of republican votes - fewer than one hundred - are claimed to be supressed? the article doesn't appear to address specific numbers in this regard. furthermore, limiting discussion of irregularities based upon the number of votes in dispute by party would tend to suggest that it's less of a crime to supress a few votes, than to supress many votes. In fact, it is a crime regardless of the number of votes - if even one vote is illegally supressed, the crime is the same as if a million are supressed. every vote counts isn't just a catch phrase. by that proposed measure, if there were a concerted, systematic effort to suppress all green party votes, and every green party vote in the presidential election were supressed, then - since they amounted to 0.1% of the total vote - it would not merit any mention at all in this article, because the number of votes supressed would not be considered noteworthy. the article is about the controversy and irregularities. were republican votes alleged to have been supressed? then it merits inclusion. Anastrophe 18:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are implying this is an article about god, or the information in the article as presented is not falsifiable, then I beg to differ. I'll read and reply to the rest of your comment later. Kevin baas 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(back left)if you are implying that the only choice is either god or empirical data, i'll point out that that's a false dichotomy. Anastrophe 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That was actually my point. There are uncertainties, to be sure, but each piece of information available should be given equal weight, or perhaps lets say be weighed according to it's reliability and importance, yes, a bit removed from the empirical level. So are these words, they are simulations - the word simulation is a simulation, and in that sense it's already a level removed from empirical. So it is with the data we have. The poll books and official certified canvass report (precint-level vote count), though empirical documents, aren't the actual voters voting. They are in that sense non-empirical, but I contend that their substantiveness is not a thing to be downplayed. This applies in general. Kevin baas 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

On the point of criminal proportionality, I would say it's a crime to suppress one vote, and two crimes to suppress two. Kevin baas 03:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cites and opinion

"Two senior managers went directly from working for a company manufacturing voting machines to winning unheard of success in politics. Some believe the consistency of their ties with one political party is sufficient to overturn the 2004 poll given the small margin of victory. Even a small alteration of the machine could have been enough to change the result in battleground states."

The first sentence at the least needs some de-opionating. The second sentence needs a cite, and a rephrase to who actually believes this. Arkon 01:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"A re-vote was eventually ordered to reverse the original result to one that agreed more closely with original exit polls."

This needs to be reworded. As it is now it seems to say a re-vote was ordered to conform to the exit polls. Arkon 01:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Among the issues raised in 2004 were allegations or complaints regarding obstacles to voter registration, improper purges of voter lists, voter suppression, accuracy and reliability of voting machines (especially electronic voting), problems with absentee ballots and provisional ballots, areas with more votes than voters, and possible partisan interference by voting machine company and election officials. "

I could not find any citation in the article for this claim (in bold), a cite is needed. Arkon 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Made changes for these sections today. Arkon 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet another source making this single edit unnecessary (the others I have no disagreement with).

1. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports (free registration req'd):

Although city election officials initially blamed postelection data entry for the flaws, the newspaper found gaps existed at dozens of wards, with more votes counted than people tallied in log books.

The gap has been narrowed to 4,600 by a closer review of election day logs and other records, which authorities placed off-limits to the newspaper during the investigation.

2. The National Review 'Corner' reports on the story in the Journal-Sentinel, using the exact phrase 'more votes than registered voters'.

WISCONSIN VOTER FRAUD {Jonathan H. Adler} The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that an official investigation of voter irregularities has found clear evidence of fraud, including thousands more votes cast than registered voters, over 200 felon voters and at least 100 people who voted twice. Powerline has more.

3. The AP reports the story:

About 4,500 more ballots than registered voters were cast in the election last November in Milwaukee, investigators said Tuesday. Also, more than 200 felons voted improperly in Milwaukee, and more than 100 instances of suspected double-voting were found.

These sources now make a half-dozen citations for the use of the phrase 'more votes than voters'. The section has been updated to read 'more votes than registered voters'. That is most accurate and most readable, and has been fully cited. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are quite a few incidents of this having happened (like this one Scoop), but here's one from a more recent source, originally in the Miami Herald and reprinted on Voters Unite.

{In Miami-Dade County} On Election Day, registered voters sign a paper before voting, signatures that are supposed to be counted by poll workers and compared to votes recorded on the machines at the end of the day. Large discrepancies indications of a problem are supposed to be reported to elections officials.

The study found that there were 5,917 cases where there were more votes than signatures. Of those cases, 4,353 are expected to be clerical errors where poll workers miscounted the signatures, the study found.

For example, in one precinct 590 ballots were cast but only three signatures were counted.

For the first link the apt line is "A careful review of the absentee vote in one Ohio county revealed that many more absentee votes were cast than there were absentee voters identified." This is more than a bit different than the line in the article, if it were rephrased as such it would be great.

In the second link the apt lines are "The study, expected to be released next week, found that workers at dozens of polling places submitted counts of signatures to elections officials that did not match the number of votes recorded on the touch-screen machines. Most of the discrepancies appear to have been caused by poll workers miscounting signatures. Others may have been caused by voters signing in but walking away before voting or glitches in at least one machine." Also quite different than whats in the article, and as before if this was included as reported it would be fine. Arkon 02:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the section you bolded, 'more votes than voters' is correctly substantiated by the examples I provided off the cuff above - and again, my examples are not necessarily the examples the article was crafted on. It was far more cited a few months back, before a group of editors removed many of the citations for readability's sake. Take a look in the page history as well, for more info. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree re: substantiated. If the cites that the piece was created from aren't linked it doesn't deserve inclusion. Page history in regards to cites doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion either. I'll give it a few days, hopefully the person who inserted it will dig up the cites. If not, I'll be bold. Arkon 03:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to be bold - but you also have to recognize you are one editor, who is coming to an article without having participated in the balance between citation and readability. The fact that there were numerous incidents where more votes were cast than eligible voters is most definitely substantiated, in numerous ways - and deleting that content is unwarranted. Everything that's in this article that was put in while I've been an editor has had a citation, so far as I am aware. WOWT Television Here's another report of a 'more votes than voters' situation during the election, that I found while my toast is toasting. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"The fact that there were numerous incidents where more votes were cast than eligible voters is most definitely substantiated, in numerous ways" You have as yet, not demonstrated that in the least. That was what my original request was, and the cites you provided if anything contradict whats in the article. This last quote even is contributed to a glitch, not more votes being cast than voters. Again, if you wish to chnage the article to reflect whats in that article, I'm all for it. As an aside, I don't care much for the arguments for ownership of an article. Arkon 04:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been no such arguments for ownership, and never have. Let's focus on the issue - the four words you objected to on the basis of verifiability. I've provided 4-5 off-the-cuff examples of verified incidents of more votes being counted than eligible voters. Not sure how that can be more clear. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Only the last actually reflected what was in the article, and that, just barely. It will need to be edited to reflect the cite (which I will do soon if not done by someone else). I have repeatedly asked for cites for this (and others that have not been answered), and only that. If you wish to say that "You're welcome to be bold - but you also have to recognize you are one editor, who is coming to an article without having participated in the balance between citation and readability." is anything other than a claim of ownership, be my guest. I believe you would be better served responding to the requests of fellow editors instead of claiming seniority. Merry Christmas! Arkon 05:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my comments as implying seniority. I was meaning to speak to history, and to point out that objections you might have to content may have already been addressed, and a review of the page history is often helpful. Sorry again for being unclear and thanks for the advice, however misled. - and Merry Christmas. -- User:RyanFreisling @

(resolving edit conflict) Akron, you are wrong about the accepted policy on wikipedia. The criteria for inclusion is interesting inmporant, accurate, and relevant. Cites have nothing to do wiht it. falsifiability and verifiability are important for demonstrating accuracy, and cites are a means of doing this - they are not the ends, but a means. And, as ryan has pointed out, the statements are verifiable. It's unfortunate that someone removed citations. The solution is not to remove text now, but for the person who removed them to put them back in, and failing that, for a person who would like to see the text removed, to recover the citations and put them back in. The burden does not lie on the person who found the information and cited it in the artcile. They did their job. If someone wants to change the article, it's their job, as it was for the people who made it how it was, to do their research, and from that research make the most positive, productive change they can. That is, make the change that most contributes to accuracy and informativeness. In the case in question, Ryan has been helpful enough to guide you in your research. Happy editing! Kevin baas 03:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, you'll forgive me if you clarify for your first statements further later on in your post. I'm in a bit of a hurry so I am just responding to your inaccurate assertion regarding wikipolicy. Here's the relevent quote "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any edit that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." Arkon 04:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're not challenging an edit - you're challenging the article's content, which was deleted and restored, and numerous citations provided here on 'talk'. Not trying to split hairs, but I thought I'd clarify your relevant quote. The section you refer to, 'more votes than voters', is and has been cited. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I had hoped the section header, any my specific requests for cites would make it clear that that is what I am seeking. Not sure how it could be any clearer. And no, to this point your citations have not backed whats in the article. Arkon 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how my examples could be clearer cites of the section you highlighted - more votes than voters. There are, unfortunately, many more. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The first "The study found that there were 5,917 cases where there were more votes than signatures." != "more votes than voters". The second "counts of signatures to elections officials that did not match the number of votes recorded on the touch-screen machines." != "more votes than voters". I needn't go on. Merry Christmas! Arkon 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you needn't, 'cause in this instance you're plainly incorrect. Voter = signature. Just follow the cites and read, like for example the Scoop link I provided:

A careful review of the absentee vote in one Ohio county revealed that many more absentee votes were cast than there were absentee voters identified.

All absentee voters must be identified as such by name and residence in the precinct poll books of the precinct in which they are registered. Over 100 precinct poll books in Trumbull County were checked for absentee voters and that number of actual absentee voters was compared to the certified number of absentee votes. There was an inflated difference in nearly every precinct of the five communities examined. The five communities whose poll books were carefully inspected for an absentee vote overcount are: Warren City (311), Howland Township (138), Newton Falls City (34), Girard City (57), and Cortland Township (40). The 106 precincts of these five Ohio communities, about 39% of all precincts in Trumbull County, netted a total of 580 absentee votes for which there were no absentee voters identified in the poll books.

"When there are more votes than voters, there is a big problem" stated Dr. Werner Lange, author of this study {...}

You now have been provided 2 cites that use the exact words, and the other cites supporting incidents of more votes than voters. Now it's time for you to Assume_good_faith on the part of other editors. No one is claiming ownership or avoiding the facts. The issue is not being spun - the objection you raised has been addressed fully and factually. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the 2 cites above that you state "Voter = signature". I'm just going to let that comment stand on its own. I don't think anything else I say about would sound civil no matter how much I sugar coated. For this cite, once again, it does not match what I asked for the cite for. For example, "absentee vote overcount" != "more votes than voters". This is self evident, yes? Of course, if you wanted to reword it to "there were cases where more absentee votes were counted than registered absentee voters", that cite would fit wonderfully. Once again though, I will recommend responding to the requests of fellow editors instead of (this time) throwing out random policy pages. Merry Christmas! Arkon 07:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - if you read the whole article that I've indicated (repeating it here verbatim is inapropos), you will see what the word 'signature' means in that quote, which addresses your misconception. 'Absentee vote overcount' is not what's being discussed. Last, no sugar coating is needed, and your ongoing civility is most welcome, and in fact most necessary... not at all random. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just incorrect. As I've read the entire cite, it states explicit reasons why signatures are not votes. Such as people signing in, and not voting, miscounting of said signatures etc. Again, the cite was requested for "more votes and voters". When a reader reads this they do not think "more abstentee votes than people listed in absentee rolls" etc. Thus the request for a cite so the reader can be sure what that is referring to. I feel I've been as clear as is possible about this, and will say no more until I edit the section later. The randomness of the AGF link is apparent in that I am requesting a specifc cite for a specific section in the article. Disagreement over whether said cites back the section, however mind boggling, is in no way an assignment of bad faith. As a gesture of my good faith in you, I will assume you know this. Until tomorrow, merry Christmas! Arkon 07:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition of an overvote is "more than one vote per ballot". The section does not specifically state "more ballots than voters", it more generally says "more votes than voters", which could include unusual incidents of overvotes as well as 'phantom votes'. So literally the citations do back the content's general statement, more votes than voters. The issue of multiple votes on a single ballot (overvotes) are not at the source of the conflict, thus Conyers, et. al. You may be requiring an overspecification beyond the literal content.

Your disagreement with me is not bad faith, and I'm glad to have been able to point out some valid sources for the info. What would be bad faith would be accusing me or other editors of ownership, or of not being responsive to other editors' concerns. Neither are the case. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The section does indeed state "more votes than voters" which is overbroad, and thus why I asked for a cite. The cites do not support this overbroad statement, and clarification is needed if the cites provided are the ones to be used. I intend to do this. Fortunately I didn't accuse you of ownership, but I decried your claims of both ownership and seniority. You can redefine your comments if you wish. This discussion stand as is, others can decide for themselves. I'll limit my responses to substansive responses to article based requests/questions, but I'm afraid I can't not point out bad behavior. Happy New Year! Arkon 21:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

WHen there is no such bad behavior, accusing others of it is bad faith. as you promised, I'm merely asking that you limit your responses to substansive responses to article based requests/questions. Accusations are erroneous. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

all article content is the result of edits, either current or past. it is indeed splitting hairs.Anastrophe 04:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

My point was that the edit where the content was added was likely accompanied by a citation to have persisted (given the contentiousness of the article) and to ask which edit was being objected to on the basis of verifiability, so I have to disagree. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The introduction being a summary, it usually does not have citations, the citations should be in the summarized section of the body. And if they are no longer there, it is because an edit removed them. Thus the edit that Arkon would be objecting to, is the removal of a citation, not the addition of uncited content. However, his solution of removing the uncited content, IMHO, is not the wisest solution to the problem of citations being removed from the page. I would think that him finding the removed citations and adding them back in would be both more intiutive and more relevant to the problem. Kevin baas 15:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As you just said, the cites weren't there. The summary was referring to something that didn't exist elsewhere in the article. Thus, my objection is to information that is not cited, as I've explained multiple times now. My interest in this article is removing unsourced material, and unneccessary opinion. If you don't want to look for a cite, thats fine, but your demand that I do so is silly, and looking through the archives, quite systemic. I will continue to request cites, if the cites provided to not match the text, I will modify the text, if no cites are provided, I will remove the text. Which is, of course, the wikiway. Arkon 21:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase 'more votes than voters' has now been cited - Conyers' report., as you noted below. So, just with a cursory scan I've already found you five citations. The text is valid, not unnecessary, nor opinion, and should stay. I hope you will respect the process. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another cite, from Conyers' report. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(iii) the voting records of Perry county show significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot; {...} (vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes were recorded for President Bush Conyers' report

Wonderful, now we can attribute that claim to Conyers. Unless of course there are primary sources buried in that 100+ page document. My quick glance didn't find any. I'll edit that section to reflect the cite tomorrow if someone else hasn't. Arkon 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, glad it's finally cited to your satisfaction. Just with a quick glance I found the name of the person testifying at one of Conyers' Columbus post-election irregularities hearings... Joe Popich, who testified that

“(entered into the record copies of the Perry County Board of Election poll book): There are a bunch of irregularities in this log book, but the most blatant irregularity would be the fact that there are 360 signatures in this book. There are 33 people who voted absentee ballot at this precinct, for a total of 393 votes that should be attributed to that precinct. However, the Board of Elections is attributing 96 more votes to that precinct than what this log book reflects.”

-- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another article with similar instances (and more info about the supposed cause of a Perry County excess votes problem:

But in Perry County, a punch-card system reported about 75 more votes than there are voters in one precinct. Workers tried to cancel the count when the tabulator broke down midway through, but the machine instead double-counted an unknown number in the first batch. The mistake will be corrected, officials say. USAToday

Akron, you are being completely unreasonable. Conyer's report does have sources listed, and your refusal to look for them (and they are hard to miss) does not in any way diminish the veracity of the report compiled by his staff and others. It seems to me that you simply refuse to believe any of this, or in any case refuse to believe that the information is valuable and should be made accessible to the public. It doesn't seem to me that you're actually interested in what really happened, or making that knowledge available to the public. I find that problematic - I find it problematic because that is the very goal of wikipedia, that you seem to not be interested in, and yet you are on wikipedia. I'm trying to preserve my good faith here, but I want you to know, for your information, the impression that you are giving me and I imagine others. Kevin baas 15:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though you must be misreading my comments. I have no where refused to look for cites. Full stop. I have no tried to diminish the veracity of the report. Full stop. I have no expressed a value judgement on the allegations. Full stop. Asking for cites is now not being interested in "making that knowledge available to the public"? That is indeed an interesting interpretation. I would appreciate it, if in the future, you take more care in reading my comments. Right now you are just building up a big fat strawman to argue against. Strawmen don't argue back. Arkon 21:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

When you promise to delete what you consider uncited, and do not communicate having sought verification yourself, it is not unreasonable for others to interpret that as an unwillingness to do so. No strawman here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Cited or uncited is not a value judgement. As this is a collaboritive project, I will do what I can, you and others will do what you can. I've stated what I can and intend to do, which is supported by wikipolicy. If others cannot or don't wish to find verification, I will follow said policy. This strawman is too stuffed at this point, perhaps scarecrow is more apt. Arkon 21:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Citations are factual. In this case, the phrase 'more votes than voters' has been verified by numerous citations, which I have provided here. Are you saying you'll insert the link to Conyers' report after the phrase? If so, I'm all for it if it will let you focus on improvements to the article, rather than non-collaborative threats. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, I will put in the conyers links, and modify the statement to match that cite. I am quite curious where you found a 'non-collaborative threat' though. Please enlighten me. Arkon 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(unindented)I will, as you say, let the comments speak for themselves. I have no objection to any such edit, if it improves the article's accuracy and readability. Suffice it to say that your original objection has been well-addressed, and tangential, unfounded accusations of ownership, strawmen or seniority against individual editors are bad faith - and I ask you to desist in such behavior and focus on the facts and the article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, phantom allegations, while I of course quoted the offending portions of your comments. Then you follow these phantom allegations with yet another 'bad faith' accusation, and top it with a cease a desist. This is bordering on commical if it weren't the root of so many problems with this article. By all means, continue to make accusations without pointing to where they come from. Continue to make accusation of bad faith without pointing to where they come from. Continue to obscure reasonable requests for citations by demanding others to do work that you can/should do if you are arguing for inclusion. I will, on the other hand, continue to try to follow wikipedia guidelines to improve this article. I won't, however continue conversations with you, as you have demonstrated quite an inability/desire to collaborate. Happy New Year.

I've done none of the above. You raised a question about the verifiability of a phrase, it's been verified, and you've accused a number of other editors of bad faith, all without making a single substantive edit to the article during the process. As you said above, let's all focus on the facts of the article, please. It's why we're all here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi folks. Found a new source of non-partisan video on archive.org, relating to the elections of 2004. Video of noteworthy events should be a good source for some renewed, deeply quality-oriented editing. [1] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2 Cuyahoga County BOE workers indicted in Presidential recount

Sept 1. 2005

CLEVELAND -- Two Cuyahoga County Board of Elections workers were indicted Tuesday on charges of misconduct, including unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots during the 2004 presidential election recount.

Rosie Grier and Kathleen Dreamer were indicted on six counts each, according to the Cuyahoga County prosecutor's office. The charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 18 months.

Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter, who was appointed as a special prosecutor in the case, filed the charges.

"I think the grand jury did what was supported by the evidence: That there was some problems in the way the 2004 presidential recount was conducted," Baxter told the Sandusky Register.

{...} Bennett said they have received no indication that the county's recount isn't accurate. He said the charges are procedural and don't affect the vote totals.

Grier and Dreamer were indicted on charges of failure to perform duties imposed upon them by law; misconduct of board of election employees; knowingly disobeying elections law; unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots/ballot boxes or pollbooks; and unlawfully opening or permitting the opening of a sealed package containing ballots. [2]

Another source:

Kerger charged that elections officials failed to randomly select precincts that were supposed to be counted by hand and compared against ballots tabulated by a machine; conduct test-runs before witnesses; and investigate discrepancies between vote totals.

Baxter would not offer details of his investigation but said he examined allegations that officials took "measures in order to all but assure that there would not be a countywide hand count."

Cuyahoga County's four elections board members issued a statement defending their employees and the voting process.

"These allegations are based on interpretation of procedures, not on any suggestion of fraud," they said. here

-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review?

I'm considering putting htis article up for peer review. Feedback? Kevin Baas^talk 16:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your purpose for peer review? Rkevins82 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Two-fold: 1. improve the quality of this article, 2. get it to featured status. (it's certainly interesting and important) Kevin Baas^talk 19:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

content added by 148.78.243.121

An edit was made to the main article by 148.78.243.121 on 2006-01-25 at 19:00:49.

This edit was destructive of existing content, without any justification, so I just reverted it. However, the edit did add some information, which, on a cursory examination, contains valuable information that could be incorporated somewhere in the article, without destroying the existing content. noosphere 01:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to make things clearer for those editors who evidentally have trouble reading wikipedia diffs, the content that was destroyed was two links (one to www.freep.com and the other to sfgate.com), along with portions of the article text. Please do not delete this content without discussing your reasons for doing so on the talk page.

If you want to add relevant content, that's great. But we should not be deleting already existing content without good reason and consensus. noosphere 06:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The freep link you want in the article is a dead link and I replaced it with one that is live. The SFGate link was out of date since it does not discuss the resolution to the charges against the campaign workers. [148.78.243.121] jack 13:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In the future please justify your edits as you have just done, but in the "edit summary" box of the page you're editing (and, if need be, on the talk page) at the time you make your edits. That way other editors don't have to guess or try to read your mind re: why you made those changes.

Also, just because an article doesn't discuss the resolution of an issue doesn't mean it has no historical significance.

Finally, those two links wasn't the only content you removed without justification. noosphere 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

imbalance in the name of 'Balance'

FAIR's website says it best, when it comes to voter suppression and reporting objectively.

Balance and objectivity—reporting both (preferably all) sides of a story without favor—are journalism’s classic tenets. However, when the factual evidence is far stronger on one side, forced evenhandedness is neither accurate nor fair. When reporters will go to any lengths to avoid appearing partisan (particularly to escape the “liberal media” tag), they open themselves to being used by campaign spinners, passively parroting political rhetoric rather than parsing it.

The cult of “objectivity, as Brent Cunningham observed in his essay “Rethinking Objectivity” (Columbia Journalism Review, 7–8/03), makes journalists “hesitant to inject issues into the news that aren’t already out there.” And the convention of balance-at-all-costs—even when the facts are not balanced—can neutralize issues that already are out there.

The taboo against suggesting that one side might be more right than the other remains strong, however, as shown by the brief controversy over an internal memo from ABC News political director Mark Halperin to his staff, published on the Drudge Report (10/8/04). Halperin stated, “We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.” A suggestion that both sides should get only as much criticism as they deserve was depicted as a demand that Kerry be held to a lower standard. [3]

I have a real problem with the voter suppression section as it currently stands. In search of 'balance', we instead have a section that does not reflect the depth and distribution of voter suppression activities in the 2004 Election. To claim that GOP- and Dem- dirty tricks were equal in scope is to misrepresent what took place in the interests of appearing 'non-partisan'. Some of the greatest factual blunders in history have resulted from a need to placate one's audience with partial mistruth. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, to the extent that the article should not hesitate to state that there was many more reports of voter suppression against Democrats than against Republicans, if the data shows that this is the case (which apparently it does).

However, I also feel it's perfectly appropriate to give examples from all sides, as long as the examples are relevant and sourced, as per wiki policy of no original research.

Therefore, if what the facts are is stated clearly in the article, I see adding documented examples as admirably serving the purpose of Wikipedia.

That said, if the issue of just how many examples of voter suppression from each side should be included continues to be an issue of contention, perhaps we should remove all examples from the main article, and move them in to two sub-articles: Examples of Allegations of Voter Suppression Against Republicans in the 2004 US Presidential Election, and Examples of Allegations of Voter Suppression Against Democrats in the 2004 US Presidential Election, or something along those lines. noosphere 22:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The content on vote suppression belongs in the main article for vote suppression, this is just a summary, and as a summary, it should give a proportional overview of that article, in number of words not in stating what the proper proportion of the summary should be in the not neccessarily proportionate summary itself. People learn by repetition, not by direct statement. If something happens 20 times, and something else happens one time, it is more effective to repeat it 20 times, and the other thing 1 time. It is really the lenght of content that gives the information. We're not trying to tell people what the proportion is, we're trying to give them the most information possible in the shortest span, and Kullback-Leibler divergence shows that the best way to do that, the best way to maximize information entropy, is to have each bit of representational information correspond to the same quantity of bits of the represented's information as any other bits, and to have the representational bits as mutually exclusive as possible. In sum, to maximize the informativeness of the summary, one keeps the coverage of the summary in word count in the same proportion as the coverage of the article. And if that is done all the way down the chain (including from article to world), then what you get is accurate and balanced. Kevin Baas^talk 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the article should state "what the proper proportion of the summary should be". I am suggesting that it state how many allegations of vote suppression there were. Please note that these are two very different things.

As to the rest of what you said, I don't think you are going to convince many people on the best layout for this article by appealing to information theory.

The inclusion of (sourced) statistics regarding the total number of voter suppression allegations against each side seems to be non-controversial. It is the number of examples of voter suppression that seems to be controversial, with neither side willing to budge. As you know, I'm on the side that thinks that if its relevant and sourced, it should go in.

However, since we don't seem to be making any progress on exactly which relevant examples should go in and which should not, perhaps we should try to be practical and reconsider creating a separate sub-article for the allegations from each side.

That way each side could put in examples to their heart's content in to the sub-articles. And in the main article readers won't be put in to the position of having to infer anything from the relative word count alloted to the examples from each side, since there wouldn't be any examples in the main article at all.

Now, if we decide against splitting the examples out to sub-articles, and if the editors of this article can not reach a consensus regarding what the proper "balance" of these examples should be, and if there is no wiki policy regarding this issue, then perhaps its time to ask for some mediation. noosphere 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I like Noosphere's suggestions about the breakouts, and I also appreciate Kevin's statement about boiling it down to word counts in order to be factual, accurate, and representative of the article's subject. However, I fear that the idea of having an article for each political 'side' of this topic may in fact ultimately contribute to the politicization, rather than diminish it. Wikipedia's presentation of this highly political topic must be apolitical in it's accuracy and representation. The various reports (ACVR, Conyers, etc.) are all on the record and there are many citations to live, valid sources already in the article (and in the already-extant 'vote suppression' article, that speak to the issue. The article has undergone tremendous work since the Election, and this is hardly the first page protection, nor the most controversial or persistent topic on this article that has been worked through by all sorts of editors. I'd hope that the editors could work this out in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, creation of dedicated sub-articles for these examples may well politicize those sub-articles themselves, but at least we can get on with the work of continuing to improve this article, rather than fight about which examples should go in.

And even in the sub-articles themselves, the issue of what proportion of examples of Democratic to Republican voter suppression allegations to keep will not be an issue, since the articles will be separate and can maintain 100% proportion of their respective examples. They could still fight about which examples are relevant or well-sourced, but that's a different battle.

One last thing I want to make note of is that none of the people actually involved in this edit war that have tried to insert this new content (namely, Arkon and the three anonymous editors) have commented on it in the talk pages or made any kind of argument for why the content should go in besides "let the user decide".

This is troubling, because Wikipedia works by building of consensus regarding controversial issues, not by making unilateral edits or a free-for-all policy where we can dump any and all content in and "let the user decide".

If you are involved in editing the article and your edits are controversial, please contribute to the ensuing discussion so that we can come to a consensus. Staying quiet until the controversy dies down only to come back and make more unilateral, unjustified edits is just a waste of everybody's time. noosphere 00:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a strange topic, "Imbalance in the name of Balance". Just that the topic exists shows this is highly POV. The examples are mostly partisan. Citing a report by John Conyers isn't citing a non-partisan source. However, that is kept while editors remove factual information about campaign workers pleading guilty to damaging vehicles for "get out the vote" efforts. I think we should remove all the party and partisan group accusations thru the entire article and stick with MSM reports and judicial decisions. Reports from partisan groups should be cut out but instead what is removed is the information about the resolution of the Detroit court case.

Another complaint I have towards this section is the quote from a state legislator about supressing votes. Shouldn't his explanation be included in the article instead of omitting it? User:JMcNamera 13:58, 27 January 2006 (GMT)

Where in Wikipedia's policy does it say that the sources cited have to be "nonpartisan"?

According to the policy of NPOV:

"In Wikipedia context, neutral point of view (NPOV) is taken to mean a neutral description of the facts, including the fact that various points of view exist, rather than a single universal point of view."

The fact is that Conyers' point of view exists. Therefore there is nothing wrong with neutrally describing his view, as long as it's sourced and there is no original research. noosphere 19:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The report is included because it is factual and contains valuable information. If you can find any reports that dispute any of the information in that report on factual grounds, by our guest. Kevin Baas^talk 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And the republicans were given every opportunity to participate in the judiciary hearings and contribute to the investigation. They choose instead to exercise their right to be partisan. Because they decided not to examine the facts, and therefore have nothing to say about them, there is nothing to say about what they have to say about the facts. That's not our fault. Don't shoot the messenger. Kevin Baas^talk 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New vote suppression section

I think this line can go, making room for more relevant and representational information:

In addition, while most political parties encourage turnout, occasionally acts of voter suppression are alleged. In a particularly overt case, a Republican state legislator in Michigan said, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." [26]

Leaving us with:

The term "voter suppression" is used to describe methods of discouraging or impeding people from voting. The government agency or private entity doing so believes that the would-be voters thus turned away would have been more likely to vote for an opponent. For example, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) described alleged voter suppression in his state (Ohio):

Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common. [25]

Activists with ties to the Democratic Party also are alleged to have acted illegally to suppress Republican voters. In Wisconsin, the son of a Democratic Congressman and four volunteers for the Kerry/Edwards campaign, acting independently of that campaign, slashed tires on 25 vans rented by Republicans to aid in voter turnout. All five were arrested and are facing felony charges. [27] No evidence has been found that any votes were suppressed as a result of their action.

In 2004, the issue of long lines and unequal voting machine distribution (among other issues) received increased attention in Ohio. In many places, voters had to wait several hours to vote. These waits have been attributed to an overall increase in voter registration without the mandated proportional increase in voting machines in some precincts (some precints lost voting machines while gaining registered voters); misdirection of voters, and poorly trained staff.

And I'll add that that last sentence (my work, admittedly) is a little long. And I think that the last and second last paragraph should be switched. Kevin Baas^talk 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of room for more summary in this section, before it becmoes about the same size as the exit polls and voitng machines sections. I'd estimate it can be about 1.5 to 2 times the size. This should give us more room to have a more representative summary. Kevin Baas^talk 19:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "voter suppression" is used to describe methods of discouraging or impeding people from voting. The government agency or private entity doing so believes that the would-be voters thus turned away would have been more likely to vote for an opponent. For example, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) described alleged voter suppression in his state (Ohio):

"Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common." [25]

In 2004, the issue of long lines and unequal voting machine distribution (among other issues) received increased attention in Ohio. In many places, voters had to wait several hours to vote. These waits have been attributed to an overall increase in voter registration without the mandated proportional increase in voting machines in some precincts (some precints lost voting machines while gaining registered voters); misdirection of voters, and poorly trained staff.

Months prior to the election, the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections filed suit against the Cuyahago County (Ohio) Board of Elections, claiming that they botched or failed to file the registration of at least 10,000 voters. During the election, a record number of provisional ballots - ballots for people who believed they had registered but were not on the voter roles - were filled out in that county. Of those, 33% (8,099) were ultimately thrown out, more than three and a half times the normal Ohio rate of 9%. Shortly after the ballots had been counted, the People for the American Way filed a lawsuit seeking to have provisional ballots re-examined, demanding that provisional ballots be accepted regardless of the precinct they were filed in, in accordance with Ohio state law and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that registration be checked against voter registration cards, rather than just electronic voting lists.

Absentee ballots were also an issue. In Broward County, Florida, over 58,000 absentee ballots sent to the Postal Service to be sent out to voters were never recieved by the Postal Service, according to the Postal Service and county election officials.

Five Democratic citizens are alleged to have acted illegally to suppress Republican voters. In Wisconsin, the son of a Democratic Congressman and four volunteers for the Kerry/Edwards campaign, acting independently of that campaign, slashed tires on 25 vans rented by Republicans to aid in voter turnout. All five were arrested and are facing felony charges. [27] No evidence has been found that any votes were suppressed as a result of their action.

Kevin Baas^talk 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? Edits? Kevin Baas^talk 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the partisan references in it. The last paragraph is esp. partisan, beginning w/"Five Democratic citizens", and having "Democrat", "Republican" mentioned a total of four times in it. (an average of one per sentence) Then there's the Kuccinich Quote at top. But that only involves one partisan reference. Kevin Baas^talk 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit war

I would like to point out that there seem to be two seperate issues the editors of this article are fighting over. The first is an issue regarding deleted content. The second regards added content.

It should be possible to come to consensus on these issues separately.

The issue of deleted content is that two links (to www.freep.com and to sfgate.com) along with some text was deleted from the original article without justification. (See the Content added by 148.78.243.121 section above).

Since then the deletion of the www.freep.com link has been justified (it's a broken link). Does anyone dispute this? If not, it should be deleted from the article.

The sfgate.com link is not as recent as the www.jsonline.com link that replaced it, and as such does not contain some of the more recent developments. But it still serves a historical function, and is a relevant link concerning the issue that section of the article addresses. Does anyone still believe it should be deleted? If not, it should stay in the article.

As far as the text that was originally deleted from the article, I have yet to hear any justification whatsoever for this deletion. If anyone has such justification please state it here so we can come to a consensus. Otherwise, we should keep the original text.

Now, regarding the issue of added content (the allegation against the Ohio Democratic Party), it is being addressed in the imbalance in the name of 'Balance' and Vote suppression sections above.

If we can keep these issues seperate perhaps we can more easily disentangle the mess we've created and come to a consensus. All the involved editors are encouraged to voice their views and justifications in the appropriate sections. noosphere 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing information

Problems with the certified canvass report and poll books are mentioned in the intro, but not discussed in any amount of detail in the article. Is information somewhere and I'm just missing it, or do we need to create a section for it? Kevin Baas^talk 21:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

add Category:Controversies

please add Category:Controversies to the article. -- Zondor 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

no, it already has Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. -- Zondor 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

unprotect - dispute resolved?

There has been no activity on this page for a while. Is it safe to consider the dispute resolved in agreement on the proposed new vote suppression section? Kevin Baas^talk 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, half the editors involved in the edit war have not deigned to respond at all on the talk page, so I expect them to start revert warring as soon as protection is removed. And even you, myself and Ryan are still divided on whether to split examples of voter suppression in to a seperate article or not. And there's still no word from the people who want to continue adding examples of Republicans alleging their votes are being suppressed, which I presume you still object to.

So, no. This does not sound like consensus to me. As much as I'd like to see the article unprotected so we can get back to work, I am afraid the edit war will just start up again until we reach a genuine consensus. And I don't see that even beginning to happen until all the involved parties restart discussion on these issues. noosphere 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's consensus insofar as it's stable - nobody has edited the proposed versions, or suggested any revisions, and as a proposal it's much more volatile than it would be in the article, so we should expect the same from it when placed in the article: no objections. It is not okay to allow an article to be held hostage by silence. Lack of objection is de facto consensus. Kevin Baas^talk 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is regretable that this article stagnates like this. However, I don't see silence as a sign of consensus on these issues. A number of editors were making unilateral edits and reverts without discussing them on the talk page or even summarizing their reasons for doing so. While other editors (namely, you, Ryan, and myself) have all made attempts at engaging these people in dialogue we have largely been ignored. So, can we take this as a sign that they consent to any of our proposals? I don't think so. Like I said, I fully expect them to start revert warring as soon as the article's unprotected.

So, what can we do about this? A few days after the page was protected (about two weeks ago) when I saw that half the editors involved apparently did not seem interested in resolving this dispute through dialogue I opened a Wikiquette alert, but no one has come to our aid. So today, shortly before I saw your proposal to unprotect the page, I opened a request for help from the Mediation Cabal. It looks like they have a ten day backlog and I don't know how effective they'll be, but I thought it was worth a shot. If that doesn't work maybe we should try some more formal mediation.

I know this isn't the fastest process in the world, and it's a shame for the page to stagnate like this, but it seems that our only alternative is to unprotect the page and see where the winds blow. My concern is that the edit warring will resume (since no real consensus has been achieved, imo) and we're just going to have to ask for the page to be protected again in short order. noosphere 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see those steps taken. I've been going about this by trying to get people to work on a draft on the NPOV-disputed section on the talk page. If the proper dispute resolution process (namely, dialogue) is not followed by everyone, then something should be done about it. But in the meantime, everyone should try to follow the proper process, and try to make progress, regardless. Kevin Baas^talk 20:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since discussion on the disputed section has come to an end, and there are no objections to the proposed new versions (after a very reasonable time has passed), I am going to request page unprotection, and replace the existing section w/the proposed version that has de-facto consensus. If a dispute returns that brings this page back to protected status, so be it. The users can then be reminded (hopefully) that there is a dispute to be resolved, and work towards consensus on the talk page. If they cannot do that, well then in any case, progress will be made toward the proper remedy. This page cannot benefit anymore from protection. Kevin Baas^talk 15:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected. It's been a long time (my bad, I haven't been working protection recently). There is no need for absolutely agreement on every aspect of a protected page, only for enough that the editing should not descend into warring again. The talk page seems to suggest that the situation is probably sufficiently cool for that not to happen. -Splash^talk 16:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I kept the section disputed tag up, even though there are no existing disputes on the talk page, to help stabilize the article and encourage discussion if anyone who has removed silent all this time has any unspoken qualms. Kevin Baas^talk 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the only reason the situation looks like it's cooled down is because half the editors involved in the dispute are ignoring the discussion on the talk page. And even those of us who have talked it out aren't fully in consensus. But I guess we'll see what happens. noosphere 17:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm crossing my fingers, too. I was a little bold and made a number of changes beyond the proposed version, primarily reorganizing the article as a whole: moving relevant information from outside the section into it, and merging. Primarily, I added ballot spoilage info and voter registration info, and cut it up into "pseudo-subsections" - bolded para beginners: "voter registration irregularities", "provisional ballot irregularities", etc. I hope this isn't particularly controversial. I think it's particularly neutral and objective. And furthermore, I haven't altered the balance of the content (haven't added or subtracted), just the organization (just moved), notwhithstanding a liitle more info on ballot spoilage. Kevin Baas^talk 18:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

BBV reports many new anomalies in FL voting machines

"The internal logs of at least 40 Sequoia touch-screen voting machines reveal that votes were time and date-stamped as cast two weeks before the election, sometimes in the middle of the night.

Black Box Voting successfully sued former Palm Beach County (FL) Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore to get the audit records for the 2004 presidential election.

After investing over $7,000 and waiting nine months for the records, Black Box Voting discovered that the voting machine logs contained approximately 100,000 errors. According to voting machine assignment logs, Palm Beach County used 4,313 machines in the Nov. 2004 election. During election day, 1,475 voting system calibrations were performed while the polls were open, providing documentation to substantiate reports from citizens indicating the wrong candidate was selected when they tried to vote.

Another disturbing find was several dozen voting machines with votes for the Nov. 2, 2004 election cast on dates like Oct. 16, 15, 19, 13, 25, 28 2004 and one tape dated in 2010. These machines did not contain any votes date-stamped on Nov. 2, 2004."

From a message by Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org. There are further details and analysis within that message that I haven't quoted here.

noosphere 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The time and date stamp thing, most likely the machines' internal clocks were not set to the right time. That would explain why they didn't have any votes date-stamped Nov-2. If not, these machines would be extras - they would not have been used, which means that: "Hey palm beach had 4,313 voting machines, but we counted the votes from 4,372. Something's not right here." The date thing is really weak. People have their computer clocks set wrong all the time.

Anycase, that should go in the voting machines sub-article or the BBV article, if anywhere. Kevin Baas^talk

It doesn't appear that it was just a matter of having the clocks set wrong, since "these machines were L&A (Logic and Accuracy) tested, and the L&A test activities appeared in the logs with the correct date and time."

"Many of these machines showed unexplained log activity after the L&A test but before Election Day. In addition, many more machines without date anomalies showed this log activity, which revealed someone powering up the machine, opening the program, then powering it down again. In one instance, the date discrepancy appeared when someone accessed the machine two minutes after the L&A test was completed."

"Voting machines are computers, and computers have batteries that can cause date and time discrepancies, but it does not appear that these particular discrepancies could have been caused by battery problems."

"The evidence indicates that someone accessed the computers after the L&A and before the election, and that this access caused a change in the machine's reporting functions, at least for date and time. Such access would take a high degree of inside access. It is not known whether any other changes were introduced into the voting machines at this time."

There are also many other non-clock-related anomalies reported by the voting machines. Look in the BBV article for details. -- noosphere 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Join!: Wikipedia:WikiReader/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities. Kevin Baas^talk 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'm already spending so much time on wikipedia that my non-wiki projects are suffering. I just can't afford to devote even more time to this addiction.  :) My sympathies and well-wishes are with you, though. -- noosphere 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiReader

WikiReader on this topic, under construction. Come join. Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cabal mediation

I'm responding to the Send for the Cabal request for mediation placed concerning this page. I've looked through the talk page, so I have a sense of the issues involved; here's my questions:

1. are the two major issues (the deleted content and the question of balance) still in dispute, or have either of them been resolved?
2. have any new issues arisen?
3. shall I give suggestions based on the information and opinions already posted, or should we make it an active discussion? if the latter, I recommend debate style: one position statement followed by one rebuttal statement from each participant, without extending the argument further than that. that tends to keep the air clear...

let me know if I can help.  :-) Ted 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to our aid, Ted. I don't think either issue has been resolved, per se, since half the editors involved in the original disputes have not engaged in dialogue on the talk page since the edit warring began. However, since the page was unprotected neither issue has come up again, as far as I can see. There are other editors involved in this who may have different views regarding the status of these issues, however. I welcome their input.

As far as new issues, there was some reverting going on regarding some disclaimer about Georgianne Pitts, but I was not part of that, so I'll defer to the involved editors as to whether that's still an issue or not.

As to where we go from here, I am not sure trying to start a debate will be successful, considering the apparent unwillingness to engage in dialogue that was evident among half the involved editors before. I guess we could try, but then I expect the involved editors to repeat was was already said in the talk pages, with silence from the rest. Since you've already read the talk pages perhaps it would be better if you make suggestions based on the opions already posted. But, again, this is just my opinion. I am eager to hear what the other editors think. -- noosphere 03:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

well, it's the nature of mediation to be a dialog. I'm just another user: I don't have any special powers or authorities, I'm just good at helping people sort things out, sometimes. That being said, refusing to engage in the mediation process while continuing to make contentious edits would be fairly clear evidence of vandalism (bad intent), and if that happens I don't think we'll have any trouble convincing a sysop to intervene on your behalf. time will tell... Ted 05:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, maybe we should give dialogue another try. I am willing to debate the issues in the format you suggest. noosphere 06:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

mediation closed as of this date (02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)) due to lack of participant interest. see case file for recommendations. Ted 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Ted. -- noosphere 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Alaska refuses to release '04 Election data

Just FYI.

(excerpt from the story at Brad Blog) A long-standing public records request for the release of Election 2004 database files created by Diebold's voting system had been long delayed after several odd twists and turns, including the revelation of a contract with the state claiming the information to be a "company secret."

But while it finally appeared as though the state had agreed to release the information (after reserving the right to "manipulate the data" in consultation with Diebold before releasing it), the state's top Security Official has now -- at the last minute -- stepped in to deny the request. The grounds for the denial: the release of the information poses a "security risk" to the state of Alaska. [4]

The case of Diebold whistleblower Steven Heller: Huffington Post/LA Times

(excerpt) Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed documents in Jan. & Feb. 2004 which provided smoking gun evidence that Diebold was using illegal, uncertified software in California voting machines. The docs also showed that Diebold's California attorneys (the powerful international law firm Jones Day) had told them they were in breach of the law for using uncertified software, but Diebold continued to use the uncertified software anyway.

Heller is alleged to have come across these docs while temping as a word processor at Jones Day, and he is further alleged to have taken the docs and exposed them to the bright light of day. Now, after sitting on this for 2 years, the Los Angeles District Attorney, under pressure from Jones Day, is going after this whistleblower with 3 felony charges, each of which carries the potential of time in state prison. Here is a story in the LA Times. Heller's lawyer believes the 2 year wait to file charges was due to the then-impending 2004 election, and that Diebold and their attorneys didn't want the information to be made public in the lead up to the election.

[5]

Listed as a problem of factuality

"This article seems to be a conclusion searching for evidence. Except for some very small stories in the mainstream press, this article takes data from unverifiable and dubious (partisan) sources, and attempts to expand the "controversy" into something much bigger than reality. Other editors have produced chartes and graphs based on this dubious data, which firmly goes against Wikipedia:No original research. All unverifiable and unreliable data or conclusions should be removed from this article and replaced with brief summaries of the concerns. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)"

I just read this on ]Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute, and it doesn't seem proper to respond on the page itself....... First, without even looking at the article itself, there may be a NPOV issue, but you cannot really claim that there is a factual problem if it is cited. Can you find other citations to negate that before you claim that they're false? Can you explain exactly how these partisan sources are outright lying? Can you explain how mainstream media is flawless in their coverage? I recall hearing some newscaster claiming that no one actually checks facts in the mainstream media anymore, it's all echoing that someone said this or that.

Second, producing charts and graphs based upon someone else's research isn't original research. It is the creation of a recap of information, just as the article itself is. If the charts and graphs were violations of original research, then all of Wikipedia would be since it isn't simply copied in the exact form it was found in from somewhere else.

There is no reason that Wikipedia should ever have less information than it already does. If there is a problem with partisan sources, perhaps adding a few words stating that something didn't simply happen, but that this partisan source claims that it happened would be in order.... then simply add contradicting sources to make it more NPOV. One of the greatest parts about Wikipedia is that you can find a wealth of information on some obscure events that no other encyclopedia would ever have an article on. Covering this in detail is a good, not a bad, thing.

KV 00:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

excuse me, but please let me point out that you all asked for a mediator: perhaps this is a good topic for me to help with. if I don't get something to do here, I'll just go back and say you case is closed because no one is responding.  :-) Ted 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one else is responding or seems to want to participate in debate over the original issues the mediation request was about, perhaps you could offer your opinion on them, since you had taken the time to read over what was said about the issues on the talk page. This way we will at least have the opinion of an uninvolved party, should an edit war over these (unresolved, imo) issues come up again. -- noosphere 02:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)