UC Berkeley prof proves Bush stole election!!!

University of California at Berkeley ^ | 11/18/2004 | Michael Hout

[ArcLight]

Summary:

- Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W. Bush in Florida.

- Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.

- In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.

- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.

[ReeseKev27]

Hmmm and Berkley is in what state? Ya thats what I thought. I bet it was GWB's brother that made them use those electronic voting machines too.

Really isn't it time to unite this country. I say we give the presidency to John Kerry...to unite the country.

[ArcLight]

This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.

Real scientific, innit? I can't help noticing the absence of one possible explanation for the discrepancy--John Kerry. Maybe these "excess" voters wanted no part of the guy. Oh, but that couldn't be it...naah. :-)

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Maybe it can be explained by the fact that humans aren't exactly lab animals. They have a mind of their own.

[standupfortruth]

ROFLMAO at "excess votes" :?)

[GoMonster]

Hey dumbass professor I live in Broward county and got my whole family aunts, uncles, sisters, brother in laws etc.. to vote. So there goes your Broward County theory. They normally had not voted.

[Physicist]

A more careful comparison of '00 to '04 will show that the extra Bush votes in '04 actually should have been awarded to Pat Buchanan.

[maine-iac7]

Overturn the election! Send in the lawyers!

The lawyers have been there long before the election - with all the "slolen" scenarios ready to go. What' bowled them over is that " W" got so many MORE votes than they expected - not just in Floria - but across the board (It's not like Florida was a anomaly) and they are therefore having a little harder and longer time covering their scam scenario

[dighton]

Added keyword LSD.

[rudypoot]

- In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.

- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.

They are starting out with the assumption that there is no way in hell Bush could recieve more votes than 2000.

[rip033]

Figures lie and liars figure.....

[MediaMole]

Even if his thesis is true, a alternative hypothesis could also be responsible. Electronic voting machines are more resistant to traditional fraud, therefore democrat vote fraud is suppressed.

[kaehurowing]

This is the university that last year came out with the "study" purporting to prove that conservatives were stupider than liberals.

[Tarpaulin]

"- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance."

Professor Gore, allow me to posit that those effects indeed are not due to random chance, rather that the 72,000 votes cited for Bush were in fact, votes for Bush.

Thank you. You may now go back to your gay pride, nude parade.

[NonLinear]

Hmmm, let's see. This study ignored:

1. Bush was not an incumbant in 2000
2. Gore was a VP incumbant in 2000
3. We were not at war in 2000
4. We did not have a traitor running for president in 2000
5. The MSM had not been busted for blantent attempts to fraudulently affect the elections in 2000
6. Bush had not passed any tax reforms in 2000, as he had not been in oval office yet
7. The economy was headed down, not up in 2000. Vice versa for 2004.
8. The WTC had not been leveled by terrorists in 2000.

Geez, how many more variables do you need to exclude to support the hypothesis that Bush's increase was due to electronic voting machines?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.

Because the actual vote count doesn't mean anything.

[nobody_knows]

http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/hout/

[escapefromboston]

The fault, dear prof, is not in our ballots,
but in yourself.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[ArcLight]

Conservatives stupider than liberals? Well, this study pretty much proves the opposite. What kind of numbskull would be impressed by this? The obvious explanation--that Bush won over a lot more voters this time around--is unbearable to these guys, so they come up with a nutzo hypothesis that turns Bush's victory into a scam. Some people will go to any lengths to avoid reality.

[Torie]

The article does not say Bush stole the election. It says that the swing to Bush in Florida was greater in the electronic voting counties than in the non electronic voting counties, and tries to correct for other variables, such as Hispanic population, population size, etc.

The counties are not listed, so I don't know if there is another logical explanation. The study did not also consider that maybe the electronic voting counties had more population growth than the state as a whole from 2000 to 2004. The correlation could also be random noise.