If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
More questions raised about US elections...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Well, people have been saying it for awhile now, that the exit polls didn't match the election results, I personally have no faith in electronic voting machines, if only bcos there can be no recount........30% of votes were tallied by these machines in the last election.
Officially, Bush won the November election by 2.5%, but the exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3%, a discrepancy of around 5.5%, of course exit polls are not an exact science, but similar discrepancies were showed as proof of the invalid ukraine election (around 7%).............
now a new study has been done to statistically analyse these figures.........they show the chances of a discrepancy this size is around 1 in a million, professors who contributed to this study include:
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics (ret) University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Seehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Paul F. Velleman, PhD - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, PhD - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, PhD - Prof. Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Jonathan Simon J.D., National Ballot Integrity Project
Ron Baiman, PhD* Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago
full details of the report can be found here.........now my point is, surely this study should lead to a serious investigation of what actually happened, in reality this is unlikely..........america has the balls to go charging into iraq to bring democracy when the incompetent gits can't even get one right themselves, what chance does iraq have?......
and don't count on this report getting anywhere near the mainstream media, which a truely independent press would surely address, especially considering diebold (one of the main black box voting companies) made generous contributions to the republican party, and it has been proven these machines can be remotely hacked into........another fine example of censorship.........still, maybe this video will cheer you up......
Officially, Bush won the November election by 2.5%, but the exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3%, a discrepancy of around 5.5%, of course exit polls are not an exact science, but similar discrepancies were showed as proof of the invalid ukraine election (around 7%).............
now a new study has been done to statistically analyse these figures.........they show the chances of a discrepancy this size is around 1 in a million, professors who contributed to this study include:
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics (ret) University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Seehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Paul F. Velleman, PhD - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, PhD - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, PhD - Prof. Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Jonathan Simon J.D., National Ballot Integrity Project
Ron Baiman, PhD* Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago
full details of the report can be found here.........now my point is, surely this study should lead to a serious investigation of what actually happened, in reality this is unlikely..........america has the balls to go charging into iraq to bring democracy when the incompetent gits can't even get one right themselves, what chance does iraq have?......
and don't count on this report getting anywhere near the mainstream media, which a truely independent press would surely address, especially considering diebold (one of the main black box voting companies) made generous contributions to the republican party, and it has been proven these machines can be remotely hacked into........another fine example of censorship.........still, maybe this video will cheer you up......
0
Comments
Considering that many of us dislike Bush anyway, it's not going to make much difference, and we cannot influence the US electorate...
today we hear in the news about zimbabwe's dodgy elections, so the media obviously has no qualms about questioning the democratic process elsewhere, yet america is somehow infallible? why weren't international inspectors there in november? the sheer hypocrisy and complicity is what worries me, that nobody else can see it is more worrying.
Strictly speaking he just governs
i don't think he does either really, he's surrounded by advisors who do all the thinking for him, although i don't think he's as dumb as everyone makes out............he will make the perfect scapegoat when it all goes tits up, everyone will put all america's woes on bush the simple texan.
Pisses me off too, but there's nothing I can do about it so why worry?
It's a wisdom moment...
I love talking about the Warren Commission, I love talking about the Kennedy assasination as well. The reason I do is because I'm fascinated by it. I'm fascinated that our government could lie to us so blatantly, so obviously for so long, and we do absolutely nothing about it. I think that's interesting in what is ostensibly a democracy. Sarcasm - come on in. People say, "Bill, quit talking about Kennedy man. It was a long time ago, just let it go, alright? It's a long time ago, just forget it." I'm like, alright, then don't bring up Jesus to me. As long as we're talking shelf life here, you know.
Relentless (stand-up comedy routine)
oh no he's back :yeees: .....................no i don't like bush, i think he sucks, i dont think he won fairly, i think america's democracy stinks, even more than ukraine's and zimbabwe's........as for cretinous remarks, i thought this board was doing rather well before you showed up....... :yes: .........easter holidays are over, so why aren't you back at school?
And how are we measuring this? If in economic terms then surely is it not the worlds greatest economy that happens to be a democracy?
Or maybe the greatest in military strength? Then isnt is a military power that happens to be a democracy?
Or possibly the oldest? But hang on, isnt that Britain?
Or even perhaps you mean the 'largest in size'? But hold on, isnt that India?
How are you quantifying this?
Rich Kid; im not gonna present a view in this debate, what i am going to do is put it to you that you are not engaging with the thrust of this thread. The point put is that Bush has another dodgy mandate... now if you wish to label the discourse as 'cretinous' should this not then be backed up with some attempt to disprove or discredit the evidence backing up the counter arguement.
Or should we all just 'Have some respect'...just because
It's always like 45% of the turnout. Turnout is usually nothing like the total population - 59.5% of total last election
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2001-06-22.357.0&s=suffragettes
So 45% of 59.5% = 26.775% of the population actually wanted the current labour government. It's nothing like democracy. It doesn't even represent an elected dictatorship.
But that's okay, voting is just another con to legitimise the actions of your masters.
Nope. Britain was not a democracy in todays sense until 1928.
The vikings had the first democracy. "The Althing". Must be something about it that makes you invade everywhere else.
Democracy is a fluid concept not a ridgid identity and this being the case i stand by the original statement. I acknowledge the fact that British democracy has evolved particularly with regard to the enfranchisement of groups such as women, but the basic workings of the system were in practice.
i was really talking about those states which have maintained themselves through into the modern era, in however many differing guises and through however many reforms
You mean this statement?
Why? Its completly wrong.
If you look at the context in which the statement was made, it is a question 'Is that not Britain?' intended to identify the ambiguity of the statement made by Rich Kid.
By 'Fluid' i mean the concept of democracy is always changing and has differing parameters for different people, paradoxically one could argue one of its core elements is continual discourse generation.
Can only have been in the last few months...
:yeees:
somewhat sarcy illustration of what i was getting at from our Resident Glazer hater
ideas about democracy are always changing, its a very loose framework applied with great variation in many different situations. What The Matador identiefied was simply symptoms of a changing political framework identified as democractic.
Or alternatively in the late eighteenth century...
Even the Americans (Greenhat, Globe) who used these boards a while ago didn't consider the US a democracy.
And with a electoral college system, how can it be. Just having a vote for all doesn't make you a democracy. Having each vote count does.
And yes, I know that means that the UK isn't either...
The US is not an Atheninian Democracy (where each individual votes individually on each issue). It is a Representative Democracy (where each individual votes for someone to represent them and for that person to decide on each issue).
All a democracy means is government by the people, it doesn't say how the people individually govern.
You could argue that the UK isn't a democracy but a constitutional monarchy, but then I'd be getting in Klintock like logic and I'm not sure my brain could cope..
:YES:
couldnt have said it better, exactley what i am getting at
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner."
Actually it's a dictatorship with a good PR scheme and choice of master.
The "Uk" has evolved (if that's the word) from a monarchy to a monarchy with a good PR scheme and choice of master. Nothings written down, which while a great source of strength for the government (they can do what they like) is also a weakness (you go to court and ask for where it's written down).
"klintock logic" Oh dear what have I started... :wave: