Time to Doff Tin Foil Hats - No Suspicious Undervote in NC 08

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

R/e NC 08 compared to Fl 13.

There's a DKos Diary on Mecklenberg, discussing the election and refuting reports of
error. Should you want to weigh in - since DKos has a large, national, activist audience, I
think it's a good idea - useful to do it today. (they also don't have the "block" feature)

Time to Doff the Tin Foil Hats - No Suspicious Undervote in Meck/NC-08

by The Southern Dem

Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 08:14:43 AM PST
Unless you've been in seclusion or you've been living under a rock, you've heard about the alarmingly high undervote rate in Florida's 13th Congressional District race. According to The San Francisco Chronicle piece linked above via CommonDreams, the undervote of somewhere around 15% in Sarasota County means that close to 18,000 people voted for other races, but failed to select a choice for the Jennings/Buchanan race. Unlike North Carolina, Florida does not require a paper trail for its touch screen machines. There are several theories floating around as to what happened to those 18,000 votes, but with no paper trail, it is difficult, if not impossible to verify the count from the machine.

Grab a cuppa and get comfy. This one's looooong....

The Southern Dem's diary :: ::
Now, conspiracy theories are cropping up surrounding the 4.2% Mecklenburg County undervote in the 8th Congressional race between Larry Kissell and Robin Hayes. It started with an email going around with lots of THESE and quite a few of !!!!!!! these. According to the author of the email the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections was negligent in its execution of the 3% eye-hand recount performed on November 29, 2006. The author also claims that there is an unprecedented undervote in Mecklenburg County for the 8th Congressional District race. The undervote rate of 4.2% is unprecedented in this race for Mecklenburg County, however, in light of circumstances surrounding November's elections, it is not surprising, shocking or significant and all the CAPITAL LETTERS and !!!!! exclamation points!!!! in the world will not change that fact.

Why address this publicly? The email has had broad enough distribution that it deserves to be addressed publicly. Not only that, diaries are showing up on Daily Kos, Democratic Underground and now BlueNC. A new web site asserting this claim also exists. It isn't my intention to call out any one person or to try and embarrass someone, therefore I'm not addressing the author of this email or the web site by name.

Another reason to address this publicly is the spread of faulty data that is now getting wider distribution. A couple of days ago, Kirk Ross brought our attention to a writer who is spreading confusion by using a completely inaccurate undervote total for North Carolina's 8th Congressional District. Michael Collins has a post at Scoop Independent News, OpEdNews.com and it was taken to Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle. In this article Collins claims that the undervote percentage in the 8th Congressional race in Mecklenburg County was over 15%. I'll refute his numbers later in this post...

read more analysis here
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/111023/378#c5

[troubleinwinter]

1. Excellent. Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, it appears that the new DU 'block' feature permits misinformation to attain greater speed and power because of the lack of challenge with true facts. Perhaps the article would not have appeared on Crooks & Liars had there been the availability of DUers to post corrections in the original thread?

What a fucking mess. It's hard enough to get real information out there, and now it seems there is a new challenge to making sure that what gets out is accurate and truthful.

Thanks, WYVBC and to (DK's) The Southern Dem for working on sweeping up the mess.

[BeFree]

56. Sweeping up the mess?

The election has the potential of having been stolen, and you congratulate these people for sweeping it under the rug?

The Kos diaree-a has no independent links and no independent data and very little wisdom shown as to what can happen in electronic elections.

But if one checks the independent BoE data links that Autorank posted, one finds that his argument is sound and has good backing.

[fooj]

2. kandr

[Kurovski]

3. Collins has posted this on the subject of his "Scoop" article:

"I’m happy and justified to use their published figures until they open the whole operation up for a forensic examination…of everything. Otherwise, their race by race figures for Turnout stand and the undrevote/difference comes from the chart above. Presenting contradictory evidence is a sign of serious problems. The Board can’t give with the hand of individual reporting showing major differences between vote totals and turnout and take away with the other of cryptic reconciliation that makes no sense. The results are competently produced or they are suspect. And, of course, these are touch screens. For all anybody knows, they’re off in all different directions and there’s no way for us to tell.

If the county changes it’s reporting and numbers on their official report, they I’ll have to write a different article “County Changes Results in NC 8th. Which Numbers Can We Believe? ."

Here are other points he addressed regarding the article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464643&mesg_id=464699

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. but he is _cherry-picking_ the "published figures"

Here, let's go CSV together:
http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt

"DateTime",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
11/20/2006 21:50:00,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Office","Office Number","Precincts Complete","Total Precincts","Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,
,,195,195,157252,522149,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"US Congress, District 8",104,29,29,19287,62925,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Larry Kissell","Robert C. (Robin) Hayes",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",10931,5157,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,,
002 ,491,169,678,2575,,,,,,,,,,,,,
004 ,441,217,696,2112,,,,,,,,,,,,,
005 ,223,75,320,1363,,,,,,,,,,,,,

OK, so that's a bit hard to read in one's sleep, but it says that in precinct 002, there were 491 votes for Kissell, 169 votes for Hayes, 678 voter turnout, and 2575 registered voters. 491 + 169 = 660, so that's 18 undervotes out of 678. Hmm.

And in precinct 004, 441 + 217 = 658, so, 38 undervotes out of 696.

And in precinct 005, 223 + 75 = 298, so, 22 undervotes out of 320.

Etc., etc.

Finally we get to this:

AB1 ,74,73,1095,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AB2 ,5,20,443,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS1 ,17,7,187,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS2 ,0,0,57,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR1 ,76,16,902,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR2 ,7,1,123,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Whoa, lots of (apparent) undervotes among the absentees, curbsides, and provisionals. That could bear some investigation. In fact, it's been investigated. The results of the investigation have been described in several posts now. There's no way to interpret the results as pointing to double-digit touch screen undervotes. ("And, of course, these are touch screens." No, they're not: absentee, curbside, and provisional votes are not cast on touch screens. Not that the undervotes are nearly as high as they appear here anyway.)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. if you think those figures are bad, look at Lenoir County NC's

But if you think Mecklenburg County's results were handled badly,
take a look at what you get at Lenoir County's website:

http://www.co.lenoir.nc.us/departments/boe/




How's that for informative??
How do you like that entry page??

Heck, the site is even better than it used to be.

I guess a recount of Lenoir county is in order now.

The fact is, not all NC County Board of Elections have websites,
and some that do - dont post any election results on them.

The State Board of Elections does post the data for all
counties once it is all reported.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. whoa, I thought I was playing pinball for a moment

Major sensory overload, all those faces appearing and disappearing as I moved the mouse. Momentarily distracted me from the absence of relevant information.

Yes, you make a good point that I never thought to make explicit: many BoEs don't post election results. It's an obstacle to election forensics, but misrepresenting election results isn't likely to help the cause.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. "either intentionally... or has no idea how to figure the undervote."

Southern Dem says this of Collins articles:

Michael Collins Articles

The articles linked above written by Michael Collins are particularly disturbing. First, it appears that Mr. Collins is advocating that Mecklenburg County's tapes be used to prove that Sarasota County's machines are faulty. If the problem is in the programming and Sarasota's machines were faulty or tampered with, recounting the results in Mecklenburg County will not prove anything. He completely ignores the fact that the 3% eye-hand recount performed in Mecklenburg County resulted in zero added votes and did not indicate any problems with the machines.

There is a bigger problem with his article, however. Collins either intentionally uses an inflated undervote figure to make Mecklenburg County's undervote appear more sensational, or he has no idea how to figure the undervote from the iVotronics returns.

In stating that Mecklenburg County's undervote is greater than 15% he failed to exclude all paper absentee, curbside and provisional votes. Provisional votes naturally create a huge undervote since so many are discarded. Once those are removed the actual undervote of 4.2% is revealed. With the correct undervote total, Collins' entire argument is rendered moot.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/111023/378#c5

Disclosure: No members of Democratic Underground were blocked during the posting of this message

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. again, one quibble with SoDem's excellent diary

-- the main problem wasn't with uncounted provisionals. The main problem was the inclusion of all absentee, curbside, and provisional ballots in the turnout figures for all three House districts in Mecklenburg. Even though most of the district was in NC-12, all the NC-12 (and NC-09) absentee etc. ballots were included in the NC-08 turnout.

I just don't want people to go around saying 'Oh, the turnout figures were wrong because of uncounted provisional ballots.' I've seen really excellent rebuttals go for naught because someone wrenched one piece out of context.

[Bill Bored]

7. I thought you were going to say...

...that uncounted provisionals are NOT counted as either ballots cast or undervotes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. that's my belief, but I can't confirm it at this time

I don't think that uncounted provisionals are included in turnout or ballots cast (or undervotes) -- and I can't think of why they would be -- and I even think I read a report that points to a much higher provisional ballot rejection rate. But I hate to pound the table and then have it bite me. ;)

[kster]

9. C'mon TAKE THE CHALLENGE!!

Your election law says::
NC State Law

§ 163 182.7. Ordering recounts.
(a) Discretionary Recounts. – The county board of elections or the State Board of Elections may order a recount when necessary to complete the canvass in an election. The county board may not order a recount where the State Board of Elections has already denied a recount to the petitioner.

I think that we should both call for a complete recount of District 8 regardless of legal requirements or other factors given what’s come up and what is discussed below. The state has “discretionary recounts” – this is the time. I’ll respond to all of your comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464643&mesg_id=464699

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kster]

13. Oh C'mon we all know the cause of global warming

Jennifer Aniston, because She is HOT!! Just joking ladies.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. frankly

Al Gore is hot.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. oops forgot something

I meant to add this to my message:

Disclaimer: No Democratic Underground members were blocked from replying to this message.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. "when necessary to complete the canvass"

Let me direct your attention to 163-182.5, which explicates the meaning of "canvass." I'll wait.

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/pdf/law/Chptr163.pdf (pp. 168-169)

...

...

OK, so, if someone is citing 163-182.7, in January after the election, to demand that someone else call for a discretionary recount, s/he ought to

(1) Present evidence that the (county or state) canvass actually isn't complete;
(2) Make an argument that the canvass could be construed as not "complete" despite all actions to the contrary; or
(3) Add a winky-face emoticon to indicate, "just kidding."

Maybe there is a (4) that I haven't thought of.

Look, autorank made a factor-four mistake, and he is trying to dance around it in part by demanding stuff from NC activists, as if somehow they need to prove something to him. I score that Lame. If people just fix their mistakes, we can move on. Piling on new mistakes -- who needs that?

[Kelvin Mace]

121. The candidate conceded

No one is going to call for a recount.

If you want things fought to the bitter end, you have to get candidates with spines.

[Land Shark]

10. When reporting of results is this messed up, it may obscure other problems....

The "explanation" offered in the OP seems to plausibly explain a few things, but without original investigation, the story of Mecklenburg isn't over or a non-story.

I'll sit back and watch, and I oppose only those who think there's nothing for anybody to look into at all (the story may or may not have an undervote component, even at 4.2% we can't conclude that undervotes are definitely "correct")

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. the scandal of the decade

My fellow Americans, the real election shocker is here.

Here is the evidence along with graphs and charts:

Election Sed diam nonumy 2004 eirmod stolen tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.



Duis voting machines autem vel eum 2005 iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu stolen feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.



Ballots Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud Florida exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut rigged aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat.




Bribery liber tempor cum Ohio soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Disclosure - no Democratic Underground Members were blocked from posting to this message

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. now we just need someone to chime in with a supporting table

(special prize for anyone who can identify all six of these
actual 2004 variables -- but hey, when was it really about
UNDERSTANDING the tables, anyway?)

ELECTION FRAUD INVESTIGATION MODEL RESULTS

STATE	EPCT	SAMP	MSNC	VAP_TO	MISSRT	LN_VEP
AL	.00	740	644	.56	.098	15.02
AK	15.29	1194	53	.68	.099	13.01
AZ	4.71	1941	730	.50	.143	15.08
AR	.00	1486	161	.52	.087	14.50
CA	29.19	2399	4842	.48	.135	16.85
CO	37.47	2576	552	.63	.096	14.95
CT	.00	879	287	.60	.115	14.71
DE	50.00	771	221	.61	.167	13.29
DC	100.00	796	262	.50	.157	12.89
FL	56.28	2898	9138	.58	.108	16.27
GA	100.00	1650	1268	.52	.083	15.58
HI	50.00	633	56	.45	.121	13.68
ID	10.97	804	70	.60	.060	13.77
IL	.00	1443	1115	.56	.103	15.99
IN	.00	946	595	.54	.201	15.33
IA	79.51	2536	341	.67	.091	14.60
KS	37.10	671	140	.59	.079	14.46
KY	81.31	1075	260	.57	.088	14.94
LA	54.47	1694	255	.59	.121	14.99
ME	.00	1992	68	.73	.080	13.84
MD	100.00	1071	1364	.58	.076	15.13
MA	.00	893	806	.59	.129	15.34
MI	4.34	2594	2693	.64	.104	15.80
MN	.00	2192	343	.74	.147	15.12
MS	.00	806	151	.54	.115	14.56
MO	14.99	2276	613	.64	.088	15.25
MT	.00	652	66	.64	.073	13.48
NE	42.66	788	101	.60	.084	14.02
NV	6.63	2208	482	.50	.160	14.23
NH	.00	1884	105	.69	.099	13.78
NJ	.00	1524	2423	.56	.105	15.54
NM	73.34	2013	198	.55	.108	14.10
NY	90.16	1476	5788	.50	.086	16.37
NC	100.00	2180	894	.55	.109	15.61
ND	.68	694	17	.64	.100	13.11
OH	15.73	2042	2230	.65	.133	15.95
OK	.00	1600	322	.56	.123	14.73
OR	.00	1086	198	.68	 --	14.78
PA	26.18	2123	6465	.61	.119	16.04
RI	.00	813	370	.53	.136	13.51
SC	86.45	1803	2513	.52	.118	14.94
SD	.00	1556	25	.68	.217	13.25
TN	74.51	1784	749	.55	.087	15.28
TX	44.61	1796	2803	.47	.131	16.45
UT	.00	828	125	.58	.084	14.24
VT	33.78	709	45	.65	.081	13.07
VA	.00	1432	1143	.57	.083	15.47
WA	14.13	2201	718	.62	.073	15.27
WV	.00	1751	163	.53	.083	14.17
WI	8.37	2340	833	.72	.091	15.19
WY	2.23	767	11	.64	.079	12.86

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. this table is the conclusive proof

thanks.

OMG - That table hits the nail right on the head.

The data is really troubling!

Clear evidence, right there.

[Land Shark]

20. What is the investigative standard to pronounce Meck OK?

that's a different question than whether an article was mistaken or not? Is anyone here saying Meck is AOK overall?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

21. this will help

This may help



Then check out the OPs.
(There are a few already posted)

Or if thats not the problem, then go to the Internet, that series of Tube THingies



And even do this

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. feeling a bit frazzled? (grin)

I could have thrown him a bone, since I'm actually on record as believing that there probably were excess undervotes in Meck (although not enough to change the outcome). But he has had me on ignore for months.

Overall, I certainly wouldn't "pronounce Meck OK" -- nor would I single it out for an investigation -- nor would I oppose an investigation.

Nor would I let any of this distract me from the point that an unretracted article whose premise is dead wrong, at some point, constitutes more than a "mistake."

ETA: Chuckling at #22. That might merit a thread in itself: why did you write "zzril"?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. zzrl?

I don't know how "zzrl" got in there.

I guess that was just part of the investigative
report.

Didn't you see my charts?
Thats all you need to know.

The charts and graphs bear out my story.



But its (Mecklenburg and the other 99 counties)triage for me.

Based on info at hand, and all that has been done so far,
not much more I can do with it.

If anyone wishes to make themselves useful, that would
be a welcome change.

Hopefully lots more will be learned thanks to Southern Dem's work,
which I understood was weeks in the making.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. that's inaccurate -- it was zzril ;)

As for the story, I've found it all confirmed by many web sites. I get about 243,000 hits for "iusto odio dignissim qui blandit" alone! Let the naysayers scoff....

I've spent much of the day staring at Mebane and Dill's analysis of Sarasota. The standout result is how much more the undervotes affected Democratic vs. Republican voters. (We already knew that, but the paper documents it in more detail.) There are some other interesting patterns, but I don't know what to make of them.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. plenty of work for volunteers, and comments from BlueNC

actually, if someone wants to get all of the SBOE
state data by precinct and download it - that would be nice.

Meanwhile, there are many other issues at play in
Mecklenburg, that could have caused the undervote.

Theres quite a bit more about the politics and
how that came into play, over at www.bluenc.org
where Southern Dem cross posted his/her blog.

http://www.bluenc.com/time-to-doff-the-tin-foil-hats-no-suspicious-undervote-in-meck-nc-08

Personally, having seen Mecklenburg's ballot layout, I can see it
having an effect, but there really is no way to ever know for
sure what happened.

Some comments posted at Blue nc
#

Also, its hard to compare Mecklenburg to the other counties for a variety of reasons, mostly surrounding local politics, campaign focus and just general knowledge of a race going on.

#

4% is very very normal. Usually the president has 2% undervote. Given that this was a non-presidential year, in an area where Larry had low name-id and many thought Mel Watt and not Hayes was their rep it makes 4% seem lower than I would have expected.

#

Just as important, in Florida there were reports that very day of problems with voting. I have yet to talk to a single voter or heard of any voter having trouble voting for Larry. And considering I spent all of election day in almost constant contact with people at almost every precinct in Mecklenburg I would have expected to have heard about something by now.

#

in FL-13 you had the candidate (Jennings) who "should have" won that county actually lose the county, and thereby the race, as a result of this abnormally high undervote.

#

In NC-08, we had Kissell win Mecklenburg with a higher percentage of the vote (68%) than we've seen in a loooong time....and yet some still claimed an unusual undervote/conspiracy/blah/blah/blah that somehow withheld additional votes from Kissell.
Makes no sense.

#

...I wish we could find some irregularity or other reason to explain away Larry's loss. But we can't. We fell short a few hundred votes because we fell short in our efforts to get out the vote. It's that simple.

I think it was PJ O'Rourke who said the problem with free will is finding someone to blame your problems on...and when you do find someone, it's amazing how often their picture turns up on your driver's license.

#

Folks
If you care about Kissell's campaign, send some money.

He was left with a debt at the end of his race against Robin Hayes. He announced that he is running again.
Two weeks ago I was told the Campaign debt was $80,000.

Help Kissell.
Kissell for Congress
106 East Main Street
PO Box 1530
Biscoe, NC 27209
1-877- 4 KISSELL
(1-877-454-7735)
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

#

Unscientific as they are, media interviews at polling locations in NC 100 found people specifically not voting in Jim Black's race. There was 37% turnout in the Black race (and I think that's inflated because of the absentee x-factor), and that's about average for NC House races in Meck Co.

#

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. well, I have it, but don't know what to do with it

What isn't available yet, at least at the state website, is turnout figures by precinct. So a statewide undervote analysis isn't possible yet.

But I might go through some of the House races just to look at an esoteric question about size distributions. If you or yours have any questions that depend on votes cast for particular candidates, let me know.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

27. the source of the latin

it was just filler which reminded me of many poster's OP's that
made just about that much sense.

The only words I added to it were things like 2004
or voting machine or stupid stuff like that, to make it
have at least 2 or 3 real words.

The latin came from a website that had those generic website templates
that are in latin, and I "augmented" it with my official looking charts.

[galloglas]

31. Why won't you answer me?

You have posted about the Latin, downthread from other posters, as if you were blocked by me. You have not been.

I have asked you questions for weeks, and have never had a response.

Perhaps if I cut and paste it again, below, you will not miss it. Please find it (and you are welcome for the "free kick")>

HERE:

22. OK, then....

and why is the text above written in Latin? Seems pointless, as most people cannot read Latin, and would take a stupendous amount of time to learn how to do so.

I however do read Latin. Both classic, and snark Latin, and read the above. Which left me wondering why you used the word "zzril" under the first frame. Because there is not, has never been, a "z", or "zed" in the Latin alphabet.

Yet you write the word "zzril".

BTW, Joyce, both Kelvin Mace (with machinery and software made in NC, for NCers and by NCers) and unc70 (for HCPBs) have responded when I asked for their "dream systems".

I've directed the question to you several times and never have been answered (and people doing that to you is a pet peeve of yours, isn't it?)

At least based on the words above you have just written, shown below)
Disclosure - no Democratic Underground Members were blocked from posting to this message , I assume you welcome the questions and would not react by doing that which is your own pet peeve.

So, unless you tell us, we will never know whether,

a) what you've done in NC is your desired "finished product", and you are totally happy with it.

b) or whether there is more to do. And if so, what it is, or

c) whether what you have accomplished should be considered the correct way to pursue these things, or ever know

d) what your "dream end product" is. So how would we follow your lead (implied in Latin, in your post), and stop asking critical questions, or making critical comments, unless we all know where you are headed.

It is hard to follow a leader who won't say where they are headed (something that lemmings always fail to wonder about).

[BeFree]

32. Why?

Why no answer? It's obvious you are being ignored, one way or the other. You ask some interesting questions and I'd like to read the answers to those questions, but I fear Elvis has left the building.

[galloglas]

35. "Elvis has left the building" !!??

That makes my day!

:toast:

But if Elvis won't show, I'm just gonna go fry up some peanut butter and banana sandwiches, and keep playin' "Heartbreak Hotel" over, and over, and over...

Take care, BeFree

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

44. My hopes for NC

Note: the post in latin was a "spoof" -

I cut and past the text from a site that has website templates. I have no idea what the latin says. (I guess its the british in me, the dry Monty Python type sense of humor.)I apologize for the confusion.

The charts were put in there to make the post look "official" and "Legitimate".
Of course, the title was in english.

The point was, sensationalistic headlines may not always be followed by accurate information, even if they have fancy charts and graphs. Hopefully on DU we will find inaccuracies and correct them, by working together.

I never dreamed that anyone here knew latin, and my hat is off to you for
having that ability.

What are my goals?

First lets say what our organization did:

We are trying to hold our ground.
Some election officials are still fighting for ways to rid of the paper.

After working full time on this issue since Sept 2003,
we created an organization,
we put up a website
we set up a list serve (open to public)
we found experts, David Allen, Justin Moore, Chuck Herrin
we engaged activists and media,
we canvassed neighborhoods
we had panel presentations around the state
we wrote op eds and letters to editors - my first one is here
http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=3991
(At least 4 or 5 of my op/eds were published as well as several of my colleagues had op/eds published in major papers)
we did cost studies of different voting machine types
we rallied
we created a video
we got one law drafted but not introduced in March 04,
got a study commission in Nov 2004,
we lobbied members of the commission
got law introduced in Feb 2005,
fought daily until got the law passed on last day of legislative session.

after passing the law

EFF represented me in NC Superior court on numerous occassions,
-to get me legal standing so that I could go to court
-to fight to revoke Diebolds TRO that would have gutted our law - we won
-to sue the NC SBOE and IT dept to revoke certification of the 3 vendors until
proper exam done - we lost

We ran Diebold off anyway, by citizens lobbying to prevent purchase of Diebold
in their respective counties. (Diebold manufactures the touchscreens in Lexington NC).
Some republicans helped us get rid of Diebold. (shock)

We fought attempts to repeal our law:

We fought off attempts by the NC County Commissioners to repeal the law
We fought off attempts by individual counties who asked for repeal of law

We lobbied county by county for optical scan, against DRES

We lobbied each 100 counties to choose optical scan and not DREs
We fought off the attempts to turn one of our largest counties,Wake County into a touchscreen county,
(Wake's BOE has Glenn Newkirk as a consultant)
We fought off Vote Centers (they encourage DRES, disenfranchise more voters)

Citizens fighting bad BOES - David verses Goliath

Chatham county activists sued their BOE for holding meetings in private so that they
could foist DREs off on the citizens against their will.
Citizens won that case but ran up $40,000 in legal fees that aren't being
reimbursed, even though they won.

We have had two elections - since the law was passed

Post election audits:
NC has had 2 random manual post election audits comparing the paper to the digital count,

I personally have participated in both post election audits in my county.

Recounts - this November we had several recounts

Squeaker Elections Lead to Recounts Across NC

- Statewide Recount for Court of Appeals Contest
- NC 08 US Congressional Race
- State Representatives Seat
- County Commissioner - Forsyth and also Carteret
- Washington County Board of Education
http://www.triadblogs.com/NCVoter/3083/

The Kissell Election

We approached the Kissell campaign before the election, during the election
and after the election, offering to connect them to computer scientists.
We were told that the Democratic Party was providing the campaign with all
the expert advice it needed.

We had hoped to identify trouble precincts, and would need the vote data
and trouble reports given to the campaign.

Kissell conceded after gaining 2 votes from a manual recount of 5 counties,
Mecklenburg being one of the largest.

No one was interested in helping me look at the election AFTER Kissell
conceded, since there would be no further remedy.

There was no smoking gun in the recount or audit
to indicate that machines were counting wrong.

Why the 4% undervote in Mecklenburg?

There are many things that can cause undervote, and NC is full of them.

The ballot design was horrible in Mecklenburg County, yet Kissell got a huge
percent of the votes there. The majority of NC 08 is a republican district,though, and Kissell faced an incumbent multi term GOP.
Kissell has never run for office before and is a social studies teacher.
Go figure.
Also, we have the most horrid straight ticket voting law in the country,
which I KNOW confuses voters since I have seen the way they mark their
ballots (since I have audited elections).

Southern Dem and her colleagues were involved in Mecklenburg closely,
and they would have heard if voters had seen vote flipping or problems
in voting for Kissell.

Kissell had lawyers, observers, the NAACP, and friends. The state party chair
is an attorney and he did everything but eat dirt to help candidates across the state.
IN fact, he helped get the first democratic county commissioner in Carteret county elected
in years, by fighting to get provisional ballots counted, and by pushing for a manual
recount (optical scan) The candidates were about 1 vote apart. The election was ultimately
won by a hand ful of ballots.

UNLIKE SOME WELL KNOWN ORGANIZATIONS THAT TAKE IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF $
AND EVEN MILLIONS OF $$, WE DID ALL OF THIS WITHOUT ANY FUNDING.

ALL OUT OF POCKET. We even turned down donations.

I have worn out two computers with this crap, and I had to switch to internet telephone service to get rid of the gigantic long distance phone bills.

I have been attacked for not doing more, by people who have done not a damn thing.
I have been accussed of being a f'ing shill for vendors, yet I ran Diebold out of a
state where they make the touchscreens.

I was called a sellout for not pushing hand counted paper ballots, yet I made sure the law included them as a legitimate voting system for any county choosing them.

We got rid of paperless voting in a state that has used paperless touchscreen voting since
the 80's.
Half of our state used paperless voting machines for decades, it had not a dam- thing
to do with HAVA here.
Besides our paperless DREs, some counties had lever machines and or punch cards.
Now we have 77 counties with optical scan, only 23 with DRES (used to be 40 paperless DRE counties)

WHAT IS OUR NEXT STEP/GOAL?

1. To keep our law from being amended or repealed. That is number one.
The opponents of VVPB continue to work for new ways to spread use of DRES,
which are bad for paper, we know that. These folks work as hard against paper
as we work for it.

2. Spread our network into counties we haven't had many activists in.
To make us stronger, and to protect our efforts.
There are 100 counties to cover.
Southern Dem will be a new contact for us, a very valuable one to help us
with Mecklenburg County. SD will help me with FOIAs, and hopefully help
get more citizens involved there. Meck has been a black hole for us
for 3 years.
We need more advocates to participate in the post election audits.

3. Get rid of touchscreens or stop their spread before 2008.
We probably need NR 550 to pass in order to do this.
The forces for DRES are powerful and have huge influence in NC,
or we would have gotten them banned already.

4. Study our Voter Registration Database -
Justin Levitt of the Brennan Justice Center stated that he believed NC's database
would unfairly prevent voters from registering and also throw people out
that should be allowed to vote. This is because our database recently
merged with the DMV and the Social Security database. Voters names must
match, often a woman who remarries will not have match.
We are in contact with the Brennan Center to seek advice.

5. Study the issuing and discard rate of provisional ballots
We want to find out -
the different reasons people are getting provisional ballots
how to increase percent of regular ballots issued
how to decrease the number of provisional ballots being discarded

31% of provisional ballots, (459 of nearly 1,500) were thrown out in the NC
08 race.
November 17, 2006 459 Ballots Denied Out of Nearly 1,500. Charlotte Observer
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/16033947.htm

45% of the provisionals were thrown out in 2004
(page 11) - State law was amended after 2004 to specifically allow out of
precinct ballots to be counted.
http://electionline.org/Portals/1/Publications/ERIP10Apr05.pdf

This work has been like pushing a boulder up a hill, and we now have to
keep it from rolling back down.

As time goes on, we will likely adjust our goals.

Again, we have done all of this work without any funding, without
any donations.

Wish list - Our greatest need is people with ability to download gigantic
lumps of vote data from the NC SBOE database so that we can look
at the undervotes by precinct across the state.

This like eating an elephant, it takes a thousand bites, and a
very long time.

This work and its results belong to the citizens of North Carolina

[galloglas]

76. Since you are impatient...

Though you have posted a lot of material above, there seems to be one problem, apart from the rest.

Like our Commander-in-Chief, you sometimes dodge questions. Talking much, but never answering the most central question.

So, here it is again. Perhaps you can figure this out while I answer Bill Bored, and then attend to you.

BTW, Joyce, both Kelvin Mace (with machinery and software made in NC, for NCers and by NCers) and unc70 (for HCPBs) have responded when I asked for their "dream systems".

I've directed the question to you several times and never have been answered (and people doing that to you is a pet peeve of yours, isn't it?)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

45. Ok I answered your question, and now seems no one interested

I go to the trouble to answer the question, and all that work gone
to waste.

Did you want an answer or just want to ask?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464950#465272

[BeFree]

46. Nope

It seems no one is interested. I was, a bit, but your self-righteous attitude turned me off. Tell ya, if I was in your state right now, I'd not want to work with you, not with your attitude.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

48. tell us all about you

and your work.

[BeFree]

49. No one is interested

But I lay it on the line right here. And I don't go around backing the electronic vendors in any way, shape or form. They are evil vote stealing bastards, but you already knew that, didn't you?

What I have read here over the years is quite disgusting and so, I have decided to come down on one side and do whatever I can to get rid of the bastards and anyone who appears to back the bastards gains my wrath.

Anyone even appearing to give quarter to the vote stealing bastards hears about it from me, and that is all you need to know, eh?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

52. does your state have voting machines??

How about your state, does it have voting machines (using secret software and source code)?

If so, then were the elections rigged in your state?

Did you vote? Because if so, then you "gave quarter to the evil bastards".

If your state has voting machines of any kind:
are you getting recounts,
suing anyone,
getting the machines examined,
calling for a new election, or
getting the law changed?

If not, are you defending the voting machine companies?

Aside from posting at DU, how goes it?

[BeFree]

54. Badly

My state is better off than it was, but it is still in bad, bad shape.

Any election could be easily stolen. I have spoken up and some action has been taken but there is a long way to go before we get a machine that can be dependable and officials that can be trusted. Therefore, I call for HCPB.

Still, your state, as I understand it, has serious problems still, even after all your hard work. And I think I see why.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

58. why not answer the other questions

I have weathered harsh words and accusations/insinuations from you, and yet
still haven't gotten an answer to my questions.

How about these simple questions -

did you vote?

was your vote counted by a voting machine?

does having one's vote counted by a machine thereby serve to endorse the use of voting machines?

if your state is using voting machines with secret software -are all elections in your state invalid?

was there an audit of your state's elections?

if there was an audit, did you participate?

were there any recounts of your state's elections?

have you reviewed the residual votes for your state's elections?

if you have reviewed the residual votes for your state's elections, what was the result?

have you published an account of that review, or can you advise of an account of the review?

are you suing to overturn the elections in your state?

are you lobbying candidates to sue to overturn elections?

are you lobbying for laws for HCPB in your state?

are you lobbying your county elections office to use HCPB?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wilms]

53. Thanks for the disclosure.

You should make that your sig line. Just so people know.

[BeFree]

55. I don't have a sig line

just keep what I wrote pinned to your monitor. And if you feel tread upon by me, just look at it and know why.

[Wilms]

57. I'm not sure I wouldn't interpret that as threatening and aimed at stifling debate.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

61. Bingo, the whole point is to disrupt

I will post it here too, because its happening here:

it appears that the aim is to waste people's time:

-circular arguments
-platitudes are mainstay of "conversation"
-has no own plan of action
-adheres to incorrect information even when new info surfaces
-accuses others who correct mis-information of ulterior motives
-asks questions but does not feel compelled to answer


bottom line -
distracts from serious work

reminds me of naughty child disrupting class.

haven't we learned this long ago, that its futile to answer
circular questions?

now the strategy is slightly different,but the results are the same.

a friggin waste of time for all.

and thats the goal.

[troubleinwinter]

62. Mega-Bingo.

[galloglas]

74. What part on the sig line, Wilms?

There is more than one statement you could have been referring to.

Could you clear that up? I would not like to think you are appearing to take a "cheap shot", if you are not. Unless, of course, you meant to.

[Wilms]

77. Sure.

I was referring to the entire post.

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. Burns night is coming very soon... n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

123. So, providence

smiled on us both.

[galloglas]

75. Uhhh, I also eat, sleep and do other things. I don't live at DU!

Joyce,

By using your "hot link" I found that your comment "I go to the trouble to answer the question, and all that work gone to waste." applies to me.

It has been two weeks since I have asked for answers from you. You finally answer yesterday (well after I was off the for the evening) and I see your answer (and your PM) for the first time about an hour ago. And already you are complaining of being ignored??

Be patient. I still owe Bill Bored an answer or two, first.


That said, I have both a question, and comments and a request to make, that won't require my rereading your posts to answer.


1) You claimed about that the Latin that was posted:

"it was just filler which reminded me of many poster's OP's that
made just about that much sense."

So, you are attacking Land Shark again? (for that is who the reply was to).

The very one you asked (a few weeks back) how many cases he had won? (while he was engaged, on behalf of ER, in the CA-50 case) And, in doing so, taunting him (or bragging) about your victories gained with the help of EFF?

Do you really feel so superior as to refer to Land Shark's post as "filler" ??

And, you are saying Land Shark's post is sensless? (If so, I really suggest all who view this to thread to read Land Shark's comment for themselves). And you think the same of "many other posters" are? ("reminded me of many poster's OP's that made just about that much sense.)

I would tend, normally, to ask if you weren't being judgemental. In this case, I think I have to inquire if you are not being "judge and jury mental"?



"The only words I added to it were things like 2004
or voting machine or stupid stuff like that, to make it
have at least 2 or 3 real words.

The latin came from a website that had those generic website templates that are in latin",

I'd challenge you to produce any "website" that has produced such "generic website templates".

Though you may have stuffed in "2004" and "voting machines", whomever wrote the rest of it has included many spelling and syntax errors, but has an extensive knowledge of the language. (If that came off any "generic website templates", there should not have been those uncorrected errors and other misspellings)

Also, I doubt that any "generic website templates" come loaded with snide remarks about other people, particularly in reference to "elections" (as they were not staple of Imperial Rome). Yet those remarks were in there.

I cannot believe what I read is anything other than a "made to order" diatribe, written in Latin. (But please prove me wrong, if I am, by posting the site where one and all can go see the originals).

I might choose to translate some of it here today, at DU, but have chosen instead to have it translated by the head of the Latin department at the University of Missouri. With luck, it will be ready for me to pick up tomorrow.


I hope your story is true (the current URL would be proof).

But, if it is not, you will have a lot of 'splainin' to do, before anyone could ever take your word on anything again.

[troubleinwinter]

78. Google Lorem Ipsum

Lorem Ipsum is filler text used for testing fonts and layout for publishing and printing. Lorem Ipsum has been the publishing industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

Common names for Lorem ipsum text is:

dummy text
filler text
greeked text
lipsum
blind text
placeholder text
mock content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, placerat odio pulvinar quam ante, ultricies volutpat neque, nonummy diam phasellus elit. Arcu ultricies quis platea sed aliquam. Diam dolorum in semper sociis a et, suspendisse quis sapien, vel vitae suspendisse enim proin luctus, tempor pulvinar molestie, amet sed sit fusce et ut. Commodo ullamcorper eros magna, ac neque praesent cras neque dui. Etiam non parturient amet aliquet montes, tincidunt amet eleifend nemo, libero ullamcorper at est in diam sollicitudin, fermentum id quis integer nulla nec a.

Egestas sed vel feugiat, ut purus integer, habitant vestibulum, curabitur elit nunc elit elementum malesuada, vel est maecenas molestie quam. Odio iaculis et, ultrices class purus vel tristique. Libero sapien ligula, vestibulum non id facilisi vivamus ut dictum, dui egestas dui dis ultrices id quis. Gravida a urna, tempor maecenas blandit sapien imperdiet augue ut, enim at viverra, enim dolor enim penatibus eros feugiat. In erat lacus lorem nam aut, id quisque, dui sapien nec, augue consequat et suspendisse. Amet vitae a nostra mauris ante. In aliquam enim montes. Consequat sit fermentum, mauris sed, ullamcorper libero rhoncus. Tortor phasellus vitae suscipit litora nunc praesent, vitae in ullamcorper donec orci, lobortis ac consectetuer, et vehicula sed vel volutpat nullam, erat placerat urna wisi.

Neque rutrum tellus suspendisse nullam integer. Nec dui mollis justo arcu lorem, viverra eget a eros vestibulum, et congue ac elit et, tincidunt leo vulputate varius lectus vel nibh. Pellentesque a vel, eget condimentum vel suscipit lectus egestas donec. Posuere corrupti, malesuada pellentesque suspendisse arcu praesent faucibus a, ut gravida, faucibus maecenas ac. Vivamus eu molestie ligula commodo risus mollis, mauris vel et ultricies dolor sapien dolor, sed felis, arcu at nisl purus id leo, nulla tempor eget maecenas ridiculus eros.

Eleifend risus fusce, fusce lobortis dignissim fermentum et elementum. Sem maecenas sed libero, fermentum purus pretium proin occaecati. Curabitur vel consectetuer vestibulum amet et nostra, sit amet ut erat lacus non erat. Ut nulla sapiente pellentesque sed euismod, fermentum faucibus porttitor elit netus blandit. Magna consectetuer. Nullam sem, neque arcu nunc augue mi, blandit neque wisi ante neque, lobortis mauris facilisi convallis mollis, dolorum ligula lorem. Accumsan sodales. Vitae tincidunt at qui pede, sed nullam, nisl viverra pulvinar cras consectetuer lacus. Porttitor suspendisse et duis vehicula.

http://lorem-ipsum.perbang.dk/

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. oh, you noticed that too?

I hope the head of the Latin department at the University of Missouri is duly impressed.

ETA: Of course, the text WYVBC used isn't the same as the text you quoted. Cf. post #26: "I get about 243,000 hits for 'iusto odio dignissim qui blandit' alone!" How many of those contain "zzril" I will leave as an exercise. ;)

[troubleinwinter]

80. I'm quite sure he will be.

"Lorem ipsum" is not simply random text. It is actually over 2000 years old and it has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC. "Lorem ipsum" comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) written in 45 BC by Marcus Tullius Cicero. The first line of "lorem ipsum", "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...", can be read out of a line from section 1.10.32. This book was very popular during the Renaissance and it is a treatise on the theory of ethics. http://www.perbang.dk/orcapia.cms?aid=101

There are even so-called "Lorem Ipsum generators" on the web that will spit out sentences and paragraphs of your chosen sizes and lengths to fit your own project layout needing temporary filler text. Short sentences or long, short paragraphs, etc. It can be a useful tool.

Lorem Ipsum is found in document and web templates and also for font examples to illustrate what a paragragh would look like in a certain font. I do a great deal of desktop publishing and use it a lot.

I have never felt the need to take it to a university for translation.

[galloglas]

83. Quite Obviously!

I have never felt the need to take it to a university for translation.

How wonderful! Apparently there are two of us here (contrary to Joyce's stated expectations) who are familiar with Latin.

But, again, is what is on Joyce's post a Cut and Paste from "Lorem Ipsum"???

BTW, I prefer to have the answers from the person to who I addressed the question --- Joyce.

We've had no exchanges that you needed to answer, have we?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

84. here's that Latin, straight from the site I copied it from

:hi:

and I don't mean to be laughing at you, but at the thought of the
look on the Latin Dept Academic's faces when you ask them
to assess those excerpts from the website template fillers.

Oh I would LOVE to see their faces. I replied to you here,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464950#465462
But will post it here in case you missed that.

Lorem Ipsum Dummy Text Within Form Field Box

Place the cursor at the top left of the form field,
click CTRL+A to select all the text (the text should then be highlighted),
then CTRL+C to copy the text.

Lorem Ipsum Text

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis.

At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, At accusam aliquyam diam diam dolore dolores duo eirmod eos erat, et nonumy sed tempor et et invidunt justo labore Stet clita ea et gubergren, kasd magna no rebum. sanctus sea sed takimata ut vero voluptua. est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat.

Consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

http://websitetips.com/articles/copy/lorem/

I wonder how often people bring them website template filler to be interpreted.

Edited so as to be as clear as a possible.

[troubleinwinter]

88. No, I am not familiar with Latin at all.

At least I don't speak or read it.

I am familiar with the tool called "Lorem Ipsum". If you have the Microsoft program 'WORD' on your computer, you may well find that there are templates with 'gibberish' text, beginning with the words "Lorem ipsum".

It's like if I say "toilet paper". I don't mean paper made by a toilet, or paper intended to wrap and package a toilet, it is a common phrase and we know what it means. If I say "dog bone", I don't mean a bone that came from a dead dog skeleton, we know what I mean. If I says "Lorem ipsum", I am not speaking Latin, I refer to the commonly known text tool. It is the name of a tool or item, like "screwdriver".

As for responding to your post, I think it is pretty common on DU for people to respond to various posts, I have never seen a post where it said "ONLY PERSON X IS PERMITTED TO REPLY". If that was your intent, you did not include that in your post.

[galloglas]

97. Perhaps not

You write:

As for responding to your post, I think it is pretty common on DU for people to respond to various posts, I have never seen a post where it said "ONLY PERSON X IS PERMITTED TO REPLY". If that was your intent, you did not include that in your post.

I would say that holds, in general. But, this is not the general case.

My question was:

But, again, is what is on Joyce's post a Cut and Paste from "Lorem Ipsum"???

Unless you want to vouch for it, and provide the URL, you have no business answering questions which only another person would have the answer to.

Ad alia in Latin.

[troubleinwinter]

100. See post #98

The URL has been provided to you three times.

"But, this is not the general case" It isn't? I guess I didn't know there were two kinds of cases: General and Non-General. Might help if you'd label your posts in the future, indicating what kind of case they are, G or NG.

All I know is that there is a bunch of side-tracking about a joke, which diverts from discussion of the issue at hand. Why would that be?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

103. maybe to avoid talking about inaccuracies in Scoop article? n/t

[galloglas]

106. See post # 102

Both of you. WYVBC and Troubled.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

108. "yet some still claimed an unusual undervote/conspiracy..."

Comment from Kissell supporter over at Blue NC:

Also....
Submitted by working for change on Thu, 01/18/2007 - 10:51am.

in FL-13 you had the candidate (Jennings) who "should have" won
that county actually lose the county, and thereby the race,
as a result of this abnormally high undervote.

In NC-08, we had Kissell win Mecklenburg with a higher percentage
of the vote (68%) than we've seen in a loooong time....

and yet some still claimed an unusual undervote/conspiracy/blah/blah/blah
that somehow withheld additional votes from Kissell.

Makes no sense.

Larry Kissell is MY Congressman
http://www.bluenc.com/time-to-doff-the-tin-foil-hats-no-suspicious-undervote-in-meck-nc-08

[Kelvin Mace]

125. Wait now,

he's on to something.

Obviously the ancient Romans are in league with Diebold. That was a secret message to them from Joyce.

These DUers are crazy!

Please respect the caviar and remember that Bill is the handyman.

[galloglas]

82. Are you claiming that

the Latin in WYVBC's post is a Cut and Paste from "Lorem Ipsum"?

Yes or NO ???????

[troubleinwinter]

87. I am "claiming"

that 'Lorem Ipsum' the commonly used name for (often) jumbled latin text intended for use as a tool as website and publishing template space fillers, as well as font examples.

I mentioned that there are 'LOREM IPSEM GENERATORS' that randomly take the words and will create the type of layout you desire. Long/short sentences, long/short paragraphs, etc.

The INTENDED USE of it is to be unreadable, but have the look and appearance of text. It is DELIBERATELY a jumble of unreadable nonsense.

Didn't you say that you read latin and "snark latin"?

Oh, yeah. You wanted a yes or no answer. The answer is YES. 'Lorem Ipsum' is the commonly used name for a tool of often jumbled latin, when unreadable text is needed as a space holder. I did give a couple of links explaining this tool, I thought.

It really is nonsensical to be microscopically dissecting what was clearly (and already explained as) an obvious joke. But you will surely know its meaning when the university professor has completed his translation, anyway.

[galloglas]

89. The question is this.

Are you claiming that the Latin in WYVBC's post is a Cut and Paste from "Lorem Ipsum"?

Yes or NO ???????

and NOT "You wanted a yes or no answer. The answer is YES. 'Lorem Ipsum' is the commonly used name for a tool of often jumbled latin, when unreadable text is needed as a space holder."

[troubleinwinter]

91. It appears that you don't read English any better than Latin.

[galloglas]

95. We'll see...

The original post had the question"

Are you claiming that the Latin in WYVBC's post is a Cut and Paste from "Lorem Ipsum"?

Yes or NO ???????

So you say "YES".

Then prove your work, Winter. Give us a URL, with the all of the words WYVBC put up. Verbatim.


Póg carraig!

[troubleinwinter]

92. Another try

Since the phrase "The answer is YES" seemed too complicated for you, let me try this:

Yes.

[galloglas]

94. URL, please

URL, please!

"Yes" implies a direct Cut and Paste.

Please show your work, Trouble.

[troubleinwinter]

96. You have already requested that and it was already posted to you.

When do you suppose pursuing this asininity becomes simply childish? She gave you the info. It is utterly beside the point and meaningless, anyway. It is gibberish Latin. It was a fucking JOKE, get it? A JOKE having nothing whatever to do with anything important. One fucking joke leading to your endless side-tracking about fucking nothing. If you find it so completely fascinating and earthshaking, please do go to the university for an academic translation.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

99. the point of the OP is to correct misinformation

The point of this thread - is to correct grossly inaccurate
information that was making its way around the internet.

- Its not to argue with someone as to where the Latin script came from! (Distraction)

- Using inaccurate info (from Scoop article)could discredit other election integrity advocates.

- Perhaps the intentions are good, but that is not the issue.

- The point is to clear up the inaccuracies.

- All this other crap on this thread is just a big huge distraction.

- Circular arguments and comments leading away from the topic are a waste of time.(Distraction)

- The fact is, "crying wolf" with inaccurate information does no good for ER.

[troubleinwinter]

104. In the mean time,

the purveyor of misinformation has posted Misinformation Volume II, without any risk of correction, having 'blocked' those known to present accurate information.

[BeFree]

105. Right

Following are the two sets of numbers the discussion centers on. So, tell us what you see.

These numbers are a comparison between the *MediaDownload* and official results.

*MD*
Kissell.....Hayes.....Votes.....Voters

10,752.....5,040.....15,792.....16,480

Official Results
10,931.....5,157.....16,088.....19,287

Difference

...179.......117.......296.......2,807

[OnTheOtherHand]

112. hey, it's a trifecta!

BeFree, those are the absentee/curbside/provisional votes. Look at eomer's posts, really look. They're there.

No one can stop you from shooting yourself in the foot and proclaiming victory, but it's getting painful to watch.

[galloglas]

115. You need to prove *you* aren't crying wolf!

Joyce, your entire thread is directed at Michael Collins. He is working from "official figures" from Mecklenburg. You are working from gossip, hearsay, and a chorus of "Yeah, that's right!"s.

The burden of proof is on you to prove Michael Collins is wrong. You have not done so.

The point of this thread - is to correct grossly inaccurate
information that was making its way around the internet.

Then do so properly. Prove him wrong or keep quiet until you can.

- Its not to argue with someone as to where the Latin script came from! (Distraction)

You posted the Latin (in response to an "expert witness" for Michael). Was it to keep the poster from being heard?

You (or your posse) have made various claims about the Latin. A "Fucking Joke!"; a post to show Land Shark nonsensical (at least you can't refute that. The words were yours); that the posts were long and we all needed a break; ad infinitum (sooooo sorry to use Latin again).

But, YOU posted it! Now its my fault? I don't think so.

Using inaccurate info (from Scoop article)could discredit other election integrity advocates.

And your over-the-top histrionics about the issue could also discredit us all, just as your super defense of any fault being found in NC could (particularly when you can't prove Michael is not correct. His figures are official. Yours are nothing but hearsay).

- The point is to clear up the inaccuracies.

Then DO it! As it stands, Michael's figures are correct as shown by the official records of Mecklenburg County. So debunk him if you can. Just stop the unsubstantiated blather.

All this other crap on this thread is just a big huge distraction.

I will agree that the OP you made has been a huge distraction to all at ERD. You should ask a mod to spike it, and it would do the whole ERD much good, IMHO.

Circular arguments and comments leading away from the topic are a waste of time.(Distraction)

I agree. So why won't you stop it?

The fact is, "crying wolf" with inaccurate information does no good for ER.

I agree. So why don't you stop it until you can actually see a wolf. IOW, rebut his case using the figures that Mecklenburg shows, and that he used.

But puh-leeze stop the groundless complaining about "inaccurate information" until you can provide some accurate, and substantiated (from official sources), information of your own.

[OnTheOtherHand]

117. you're backed by good information

essentially the same information here: http://home.earthlink.net/~meckvote06/id1.html
and the analysis replicated by eomer here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=465196&mesg_id=465384
based on the data here: http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt

It's plain to see that the turnout figures on the "Official Results" summary page (http://www.meckboe.org/pages/Election/Summary.html) don't add up. Since we can see exactly where those totals came from, I really see no excuse for anyone to claim that they support double-digit undervote rates on the iVotronics.

That probably explains the insistence on complaining about personal attacks. I don't know if galloglas even has the chops to discuss numbers, but he certainly can't win this argument. He can do his best to burn you out, however. Don't let him.

[galloglas]

102. It "becomes simply childish"

when YOU continuously and repeatedly post the same link to "Lorem Ipsum" and TRY top leave the impression that the Latin WYVBC posted is at that web site.

She's not said it, you've not said it. I am asking to see the page she, allegedly, Cut and Pasted to her post, and I want it to be verbatim. IOW, prove that her post came about in the manner claimed. -------- Just like everyone would like to see her "prove" that her claims about Michael Collins are true. Michael, at the least, is using Mecklenburg County's official figures. Joyce's allegations are merely hearsay.

And despite your saying that "It is utterly beside the point and meaningless, anyway", that is not true. This whole issue, Joyce's diatribe OP attacking Collins, is at the very heart of the matter. Joyce should either back up her claims, or pipe down until she can.

And this whole thread about Latin came about by WYVBC's rude answering of Land Shark's defense of Collins piece, as written, and doing it with gibberish Latin. That could only have been topped by her answering Land Shark with "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!". It was merely one more attempt by the local Posse to keep people from asking WYVBC to prove her case.

It's been days, and she still has not done it!

As for your statement that "It was a fucking JOKE, get it? A JOKE having nothing whatever to do with anything important.", I would have to differ.

Writing a (seemingly) libelous OP about Michael Collins piece, while accusing him of bad faith, isn't "a fucking JOKE", and it hardly "nothing whatever to do with anything important." Libel is generally very important... particularly the person being libeled.

BTW, FYI, re: "It is gibberish Latin". It is not. It is Cicero.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

107. NC 08: Kissell gained 2 votes from manual recount of 5 counties

Kissell gained only 2 votes from manual recount (3%) of 5 counties then conceded

5 counties had a manual sample recount (which extends if results show anomalies).

4 of the counties were optical scan, and 1, Mecklenburg is touch screen with the VVPAT.
We had machine recounts, then we had manual recounts.

RDU News 14 | 11/29/2006 | Kissell Concedes Defeat
Kissell conceded even though only five of the ten counties in the district had completed the hand recount requested by the Democrat....
He gained only two votes Wednesday during the first phase of the hand recount,
during which election officials manually recount votes in a sample of precincts covering 3 percent of the votes cast in the race.

http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=95335&SecID=2

Kissell gained 10 votes from the machine recount in Cabarrus, Hoke, Montgomery, Richmond and Union counties

The Sun News | 11/22/2006 | 8th District race closer in recount
In Hoke, Hayes gained a single vote, while in Union County Kissell lost two ...
www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16074785.htm

[galloglas]

118. Proof, Joyce, Proof!

This is why people give you a hard time, Joyce. You claim others don't answer your questions when, in fact, it is you who refuse to answer theirs. All the while making posts that imply you HAVE answered those questions.

Below is a prime example:

I state:

Just like everyone would like to see her "prove" that her claims about Michael Collins are true. Michael, at the least, is using Mecklenburg County's official figures. Joyce's allegations are merely hearsay.

and you reply with

Kissell gained only 2 votes from manual recount (3%) of 5 counties then conceded

5 counties had a manual sample recount (which extends if results show anomalies).

4 of the counties were optical scan, and 1, Mecklenburg is touch screen with the VVPAT.
We had machine recounts, then we had manual recounts.


Now, darlin', that may be the answer to some question. But it sure as hell is not an answer to my question above. (in bold)

[troubleinwinter]

116. "It is Cicero." Hahahaha!!!! It is floor-sweepings of Cicero.

Little broken jumbled and shuffled pieces of floor sweepings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum

[galloglas]

119. Perhaps you know more about floors than

you do about either Latin or Cicero?

Your own Wikipedia cite gives this:

Cicero's original text: "…neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?"

H. Rackham's 1914 translation: "Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?"

Maybe you wish to dig up Rackham and interrogate him?

Or do you just want to slip in posts to make the posse, and passersby, think that you have said something salient??

[troubleinwinter]

126. I am so terribly sorry

about your reading comprehension deficiency.

You quoted a portion of Cicero. You did not post 'lorem ipsum'.

(Excerpt images taken from the website you quoted, but did not read)

This is a bit of 'lorem ipsum':



This is a portion of Cicero's writing. The bolded portions are the bits typically used in 'lorem ipsum':



"Lorem" is not a Latin word, it it PART of a word.

The 'lorem ipsum' text that was posted by WYCBV also included the pretend "words" 'zzril' and 'takimata'.



When you have the university translate the secret coded message, be sure to have them take a special look at 'lorem', 'zzril' and 'takimata'.

In regard to the subject of this thread, I think you'll find this interesting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=465196&mesg_id=465538

[troubleinwinter]

98. Are you completely unaware

that WYVBC has posted the URL THREE times??? Three times in response to you. Why on earth should I take you by the hand and show you yet again, when you refuse to read her THREE responses to the absurd query? If THREE doesn't do it, I doubt another would help much.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

114. "a false claim ..dilutes the importance of other, more valid claims"

Southern Dem says that false claims take time and energy away from where they are most needed

from Time to Doff the Tin Foil Hats - No Suspicious Undervote in Meck/NC-08

Now, conspiracy theories are cropping up surrounding the 4.2% Mecklenburg County undervote in the 8th Congressional race between Larry Kissell and Robin Hayes. It started with an email going around with lots of THESE and quite a few of !!!!!!! these....

... Another reason to address this publicly is the spread of faulty data that is now getting wider distribution. A couple of days ago, Kirk Ross brought our attention to a writer who is spreading confusion by using a completely inaccurate undervote total for North Carolina's 8th Congressional District. Michael Collins has a post at Scoop Independent News, OpEdNews.com and it was taken to Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle. In this article Collins claims that the undervote percentage in the 8th Congressional race in Mecklenburg County was over 15%. I'll refute his numbers later in this post.

The most important reason to address this publicly is that there are valid complaints with election procedures and results in some states. Any time a false claim is made or a problem created where none exists, it dilutes the importance of other, more valid claims and takes attention and possibly resources away from where they are most needed.
http://www.bluenc.com/time-to-doff-the-tin-foil-hats-no-suspicious-undervote-in-meck-nc-08

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

111. "I wish we could find some irregularity or other reason..."

Posted by Kissell supporter at Blue NC:

Sorry to say

Submitted by working for change on Thu, 01/18/2007 - 11:14am.

...I wish we could find some irregularity or other reason to explain away Larry's loss. But we can't. We fell short a few hundred votes because we fell short in our efforts to get out the vote. It's that simple.

I think it was PJ O'Rourke who said the problem with free will is finding someone to blame your problems on...and when you do find someone, it's amazing how often their picture turns up on your driver's license.

Larry Kissell is MY Congressman

http://www.bluenc.com/time-to-doff-the-tin-foil-hats-no-suspicious-undervote-in-meck-nc-08

[Kelvin Mace]

124. No one is getting

much of a classic education anymore.

It is so sad.

I'm reduced to explaining who Dr. Pangloss is these days to the ignorati.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

81. wish I could see the faces on Latin Dept folks

First of all, I have no "dream voting system", I don't think one exists.
But since HCPB is a non starter at this time, I have pushed for optical scan
and the automark, with audits - in my state. (other disabled accessible systems fine, as long as not DRES) -

What systems are in your state? Are they your "dream system"?

Second, my pet peeve is folks who put out sensationalistic but
inaccurate "articles" that end up discrediting the election reform community.

You said:

1) You claimed about that the Latin that was posted:

"it was just filler which reminded me of many poster's OP's that
made just about that much sense."

:shrug:

See this link: http://websitetips.com/articles/copy/lorem/
Now, look at the box in the middle of the webpage,(linked below).
I cut and pasted from that box for "filler" for my spoof.
And by the way OnTheOtherHand, it does contain "zzrl".

You said

So, you are attacking Land Shark again? (for that is who the reply was to).

The very one you asked (a few weeks back) how many cases he had won? (while he was engaged, on behalf of ER, in the CA-50 case) And, in doing so, taunting him (or bragging) about your victories gained with the help of EFF?

Do you really feel so superior as to refer to Land Shark's post as "filler" ??

:eyes:

In some ways, I actually like Land Shark. I do think he is windy, but probably many think
I am "windy" too.
That post is a "spoof" that I felt was much needed in the middle of some long drawn out, difficult to read posts.
Its subjective to the individual as to where it is most deserved.
Now if you think it applies to Mr. Land Shark, that is your own thing.

And, you are saying Land Shark's post is sensless? (If so, I really suggest all who view this to thread to read Land Shark's comment for themselves). And you think the same of "many other posters" are? ("reminded me of many poster's OP's that made just about that much sense.)

I didn't say that. Are YOU saying Land Shark's post is senseless?

I would tend, normally, to ask if you weren't being judgemental. In this case, I think I have to inquire if you are not being "judge and jury mental"?

Nothing valid to say? Just hurling insults? :puke:

The latin came from a website that had those generic website templates that are in latin",

I'd challenge you to produce any "website" that has produced such "generic website templates".

Though you may have stuffed in "2004" and "voting machines", whomever wrote the rest of it has included many spelling and syntax errors, but has an extensive knowledge of the language. (If that came off any "generic website templates", there should not have been those uncorrected errors and other misspellings)

Also, I doubt that any "generic website templates" come loaded with snide remarks about other people, particularly in reference to "elections" (as they were not staple of Imperial Rome). Yet those remarks were in there.

I cannot believe what I read is anything other than a "made to order" diatribe, written in Latin. (But please prove me wrong, if I am, by posting the site where one and all can go see the originals).

See this website where I got the latin text http://websitetips.com/articles/copy/lorem/

I might choose to translate some of it here today, at DU, but have chosen instead to have it translated by the head of the Latin department at the University of Missouri. With luck, it will be ready for me to pick up tomorrow.

Hilarious!!! :rofl: I wish I could see the look on their faces!!!

I hope your story is true (the current URL would be proof).

But, if it is not, you will have a lot of 'splainin' to do, before anyone could ever take your word on anything again.

You mean like how people felt after believing the Scoop article, maybe even forwarding it around, and then finding out that it was grossly inaccurate.

(edited for grammer in last sentence)

[galloglas]

85. You most certainly did!

You claim not to have inferred Land Shark's post was foolish?

Joyce:I didn't say that. Are YOU saying Land Shark's post is senseless?

Galloglas: I know it is not foolish! It affirmed AutoRank's post as valid. It is based upon the "official record".

These are Land Shark's words.

The "explanation" offered in the OP seems to plausibly explain a few things, but without original investigation, the story of Mecklenburg isn't over or a non-story.

I'll sit back and watch, and I oppose only those who think there's nothing for anybody to look into at all (the story may or may not have an undervote component, even at 4.2% we can't conclude that undervotes are definitely "correct")

And you answer him, and waste all of our time, with that silly post in Latin, and then when questioned as to why, you reply,

"it was just filler which reminded me of many poster's OP's that
made just about that much sense."

And that is not an implication that Land Shark's post is senseless? I'll let the jury (not a choir of your syncophants) decide.



The status of your allegation about Michael's article.


Michael Collins has offered to put out a correction just as soon as Mecklenburg puts out a revised "official record".

You assertion that Collins is wrong is based upon:

1) Your words
2) Emails from unidentified people
3) The fact that your are in N. Carolina yourself
4) References to someone else's diaries at dKos.

and other non-pertinent reasons.

Where I come from, that is not called evidence. It is called hearsay or, from the less charitably-minded, gossip.

[galloglas]

86. BTW, "(edited for grammer in last sentence)"

You seem to be taking such glee, along with your syncophants, in Cut and Pasting links for me to follow, I don't want to be left out of the Academic fun.

So, since you edited it for grammer, Joyce, perhaps you might edit it for spelling?

Grammar. You can find it here. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=grammar

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

90. its a matter of choice

Now there is more than one review of the undervotes on NC 08 and Meckelenburg County - and people are free to decide for themselves which they believe is most reliable.

They can look at the websites, the links, the discussion, and they can make up their own minds.

No one can do that for them.

[galloglas]

120. A matter of choice??

That is your reply?

Choice about what? The spelling of grammar? I don't think so.

Is that a response to my question (or were you just looking for an open spot to insert an unrelated comment)?

My post went like this. I'll underline the question for clarity.


You seem to be taking such glee, along with your syncophants, in Cut and Pasting links for me to follow, I don't want to be left out of the Academic fun.

So, since you edited it for grammer, Joyce, perhaps you might edit it for spelling?

Grammar. You can find it here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=grammar

Here is what is what you get if you try your "matter of choice" spelling of "grammer".

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for grammer:

1. grammar
2. grimmer
3. groomer
4. grammes
5. gammer
6. grammars
7. grater
8. gamer
9. Gramme
10. grama
11. greener
12. Greater
13. grainer

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. what, calling me out now? (grin)

Y'know what? I stand by my previous statement. It has "zzril" with an i. But I don't know whether "anal retentive" is hyphenated. ;)

You might direct galloglas to eomer's contributions in BeFree's research thread. Actually, if he had read BeFree's OP more closely, he might have seen the problem on his own....

Ah, heck with it. People don't see what they don't want to see. The "block" function is just the tip of the iceberg in that regard.

[Kelvin Mace]

122. What he wants to do

is try and cast aspersions on your efforts.

Look as I might on the web, I can find very little ACTUAL Work being performed by gg. His specialty appears to be deriding things he cannot, or does not understand.

Don't waste time answering any more of his fool questions.

[galloglas]

22. OK, then....

and why is the text above written in Latin? Seems pointless, as most people cannot read Latin, and would take a stupendous amount of time to learn how to do so.

I however do read Latin. Both classic, and snark Latin, and read the above. Which left me wondering why you used the word "zzril" under the first frame. Because there is not, has never been, a "z", or "zed" in the Latin alphabet.

Yet you write the word "zzril".

BTW, Joyce, both Kelvin Mace (with machinery and software made in NC, for NCers and by NCers) and unc70 (for HCPBs) have responded when I asked for their "dream systems".

I've directed the question to you several times and never have been answered (and people doing that to you is a pet peeve of yours, isn't it?)

At least based on the words above you have just written, shown below)
Disclosure - no Democratic Underground Members were blocked from posting to this message , I assume you welcome the questions and would not react by doing that which is your own pet peeve.

So, unless you tell us, we will never know whether,

a) what you've done in NC is your desired "finished product", and you are totally happy with it.

b) or whether there is more to do. And if so, what it is, or

c) whether what you have accomplished should be considered the correct way to pursue these things, or ever know

d) what your "dream end product" is. So how would we follow your lead (implied in Latin, in your post), and stop asking critical questions, or making critical comments, unless we all know where you are headed.

It is hard to follow a leader who won't say where they are headed (something that lemmings always fail to wonder about).

[hunter]

28. ???

OMG

:spank:

[BeFree]

33. What a crock!

Southern Dem is the biggest crock of you know what. It doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground.

All you have to do is look at the turnout figures the district 8 congressional race in Meck county, as Autorank has posted, to see that in the district 8 race there was a huge undervote in that race.

The simple facts, if the Meck BOE is to be believed (?) show the huge undervotes.

I have pasted and copied the numbers below from.

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D8.html

Voter Turnout:

19287 out of 62913
Voter Turnout Percentage:...31%

Total:
Larry Kissell DEM 10931 68%
Robert Hayes REP 5157 32%

that makes 16,088 votes in this race from a total of 19287 voters, leaving 3,199 undervotes in district 8. That Meck BOE site says that almost 15% of the total voters did not vote in the congressional race. Autorank has been smeared by this "Southern Dem" buttwipe. Bring him over here, willB, and we'll teach him a thing or two.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. absolutely wrong, for reasons already explained

(BeFree has me on ignore, AFAIK)

Absentee, curbside, and provisional ballots for the entire county are included in the CD turnout figures. The precinct-level figures support an undervote rate of about 4% in NC-08.

Actually reading the diary might have helped.

[BeFree]

47. You see

This is why I had you on ignore. You respond, as usual, with unsubstantiated innuendo, much like the Kos diaree-a you so snidely remark that I must not have read.

I read that trash, and what I found was a bunch of garbage with no independent links, no independent data and no independent thought having to do with the whole sphere of election reform.

What we have here is a failure to use the OFFICIAL RESULTS which show an undervote rate of over 15% in district 8, and no amount of words from you or SD are gonna change those numbers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. jeepers

I struggle to believe that you believe what you are posting. Once again, the data here, on the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections website
http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt
are added together to obtain your official results. You yourself can look at them and figure the undervote rate in every precinct in NC-08. It is right there for anyone to see. Your argument depends upon persuading people not to look at those numbers. For some readers, it will work.

Something you might think about -- does North Carolina law consider the turnout in the NC-08 portion of Mecklenburg County an "official result"?

[BeFree]

67. Not MY official results

But the BoE's offical results as posted on their website.

Your argument is based on something, but I don't know what, or how any of you come up with the 4%.

There were 19,287 voters in CD 8 Meck.
there were 16,088 votes counted in CD 8 Meck
there were. 3,199 undervotes in CD 8 Meck

How you can ignore those numbers makes yall incredible.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. no, there weren't 19,287 voters in CD 8 Meck

BeFree, I'm not sure what to make of this. I have told you repeatedly how we come up with the 4%. And I have told you repeatedly how and why the 19,287 figure is wrong. There are, what, about 29 precincts in the CD 8 portion of Meck; you could have figured the undervote rate out for yourself many times over in the time you've spent repeating the wrong numbers.

EDIT TO ADD: Ah, eomer has put it all together over on the research thread. There's a problem with his preliminary calculations for CD9 and CD12, but CD8 looks spit spot to me.

[BeFree]

70. So

You are saying the website listed official results page is wrong, in error, incorrect? That's pretty damn bold of you. Now, if you can just get that BoE to agree with you and they take the numbers down, you win.

Otherwise, you have nothing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. if you look, you will know what we have

We have two sets of numbers, which agree with each other, and which yield incorrect turnout figures for the three House races -- turnout figures that don't add up to the total turnout. We know that we don't have to attribute this to touch screen shenanigans, because we can see exactly why the numbers don't add up: due to the triple-counting of absentee, curbside, and provisional ballots, and the double-counting of turnout in three precincts divided between CD9 and CD12.

No boldness required, or damn little: just the courage to actually look at the numbers. You could do this yourself.

Since turnout per House district is not an "official result" as far as I know, I doubt that the BoE will bother to try to get it right.

[BeFree]

110. Wow

On edit: what we have are corrupted BoE numbers that I finally do see a corrupted addition. What is the shame here is that the BoE has royally screwed up and folks should be blasting the board for that stupid mistake.

It took me a while to find the corruption and really, with no help from anybody but eomer. Thanks eomer.


You state:

We have two sets of numbers, which agree with each other, and which yield incorrect turnout figures for the three House races -- turnout figures that don't add up to the total turnout.

That is simply incredible. Did you ever even read what you wrote? because this is what you said:

"The numbers agree with each other, but they yield incorrect turnout figures that don't add up to the total turnout."

Incredible. Simply incredible. WOW!

I have the courage to look at the numbers and maybe you do too, but what you see and what the rest of the world sees doesn't agree. Especially since looking at the official results page from the BoE in question do state the turnout figures which don't agree with the numbers you are using from an un-official page. The two sets of numbers DO NOT agree.

Is it courage, or is it in your case, that you can't remember?

[OnTheOtherHand]

113. no, it's not incredible to people who look

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/Election/Summary.html

This says "Official Results," so I assume you like it. But the countywide turnout, 157252, is less than the sum of the reported turnouts for the three House races.

Both the correct countywide turnout, and the incorrect House turnouts, are calculated by adding numbers in the precinct-level returns (which you like to disparage as the "MD" numbers).

If you have the courage to look at the numbers, why do you not know this? eomer even laid out all the numbers for you -- the only other thing you would have to take into account is those three split precincts. Then you would see how the Official Results are derived from the MD numbers.

I don't think you want to see. Bummer.

[BeFree]

36. Let us look at two neighboring districts from Meck.

Lets look at the other two Meck district vote totals.

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D9.html
District 9
Voter Turnout:

106309 out of 313238
Voter Turnout

Total:
Bill Glass DEM 37732
Sue Myrick REP 62556


100288 total voters leaving 6021 undervotes which is about 5% undervotes, so again, the 15% in district 8 is three times greater than district 9. Three times!

Total.........100288 counted + 6021 uncounted = 106309 total voters


Then we have district 12

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D12.html
Voter Turnout:

38687 out of 145836
Voter Turnout

Mel Watt DEM 26236
Ada Fisher 8340

Total......34576 counted + 4,111 uncounted = 38687 total voters

With 4,111 undervotes... about 8%. Almost one half of the district 8 undervotes, so any claim that anyone has parsed the numbers and not gleaned the discrepancies is full of you know what.

District 8, NC has nearly the same percentage of undervotes that district 13 in Fla. had. Autorank is being viciously attacked. I can only think that is happening because he is on to something and the worms are coming out of the woodworks to keep him from blowing the cover on this crap. Go Auto!

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. go ahead, parse the numbers

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/Election/Summary.html : total turnout 157252

http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt
people can figure the number of undervotes in each precinct
examples here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464950&mesg_id=464999

But you can't read this. Nice.

[BeFree]

38. What we have here

is numbers direct from the Meck county BOE. Not numbers that have been shaped or cooked, just numbers from what the website claims are OFFICIAL RESULTS.

The SD numbers you have to get from that person's *make pdf* files. What a crock. How lame to hide behind un-official numbers. And then SD says that provisionals etc, blah, blah, blah, are to be figured into the mix. But the numbers Auto posted are the same OFFICIAL RESULT numbers that I just reposted.

Ya know, I trust Auto, but when I saw questions, I looked into it myself and even read the SD DKos post (which post, if there were any justice Kos would pull) and researched for myself. Yall have wasted mine, and I'm sure many others, time in trying to refute Auto, Yall should be ashamed of yourselves. Go Auto!

[BeFree]

41. An email asks me too lookie here

So I did. And here is what I found. And let this be a lesson to all you researchers: accept only what is labeled OFFICIAL RESULTS. Because, as you will see, this page from the Meck website is NOT OFFICIAL, but someone has been using these numbers, I have been informed.

So we go to: http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt

Lord, lookie at all those NUMBers. Well, lets look 'em over.

Here is a sample from that page listing the three different congressional races in Meck county. When we compare the AB's the provisionals and what not, we see that page uses the same numbers for what appears to be voter turnout in each race. ie, 1095, 443, 187, 57, 902, and 123. I have bolded the first set for your convenience. Well, if SD used these numbers now wonder he's all screwed up.... these numbers are fucked and obviously NOT OFFICIAL, like the numbers Auto and I used:


"US Congress, District 8",104,29,29,19287,62925,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Larry Kissell","Robert C. (Robin) Hayes",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",10931,5157,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,,

AB1 ,74,73, 1095,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AB2 ,5, 20, 443, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS1 ,17, 7, 187, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS2 ,0, 0, 57, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR1 ,76,16, 902, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR2 ,7, 1, 123,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"US Congress, District 9",105,115,115,106309,313352,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Bill Glass","Sue Myrick",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",37732,62556,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,
AB1 ,341,466, 1095,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AB2 ,126,194, 443, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS1 ,38, 47, 187, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS2 ,6, 23, 57, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR1 ,161,190, 902, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR2 ,39, 46, 123, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


"US Congress, District 12",106,54,54,38687,145872,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Mel Watt","Ada M. Fisher",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",26236,8340,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,,
AB1 ,83,44,1095,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AB2 ,61,35,443,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS1 ,72,2,187,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS2 ,26,2,57,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR1 ,216,32,902,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR2 ,19,10,123,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. and again

"The numbers Auto and (you) used" are simply these numbers added together.

You are actually documenting "Southern Democrat"'s point: that the absentee, curbside, and provisional ballots for the entire county are added into each House district's turnout.

And you are <snip>ping all the data that points to single-digit -- not double-digit -- undervotes. For instance:

"DateTime",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
11/20/2006 21:50:00,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Office","Office Number","Precincts Complete","Total Precincts","Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,
,,195,195,157252,522149,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"US Congress, District 8",104,29,29,19287,62925,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Larry Kissell","Robert C. (Robin) Hayes",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",10931,5157,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,,
002 ,491,169,678,2575,,,,,,,,,,,,,
004 ,441,217,696,2112,,,,,,,,,,,,,
005 ,223,75,320,1363,,,,,,,,,,,,,
006 ,350,124,483,2496,,,,,,,,,,,,,

So, in precinct 002, we have 491 votes for Kissell, 169 votes for Hayes, 678 turnout.

Thanks.

[BeFree]

50. Sorry

All I use are OFFICIAL RESULTS. Now, if you insist that the OFFICIAL RESULTS are incorrect, then you should take that up with the producers of those results.

But what those OFFICIAL numbers now say, quite clearly, is that there was an over 15% undervote in that county, just as Autorank has shown, and which you nor anyone else has contradicted, except to say that they are somehow incorrect.

Of course, you could add up all those numbers you are shopping and see if they match the OFFICIAL numbers, couldn't you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. I have, and they do -- so what is your excuse for ignoring them? n/t

[BeFree]

66. Me?

It is you that is ignoring the official results. Because when you do the real simple math, you see the 15% undervote. Yet you ignore that simple math.

here are the Official result numbers... do the math yourself:
Voters: 19,287
counted: 16,088
not counted: 3,199

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. BeFree, what were the undervote rates in

Precinct 002?
Precinct 004?
Precinct 005?

Repeat ad lib until either the message sinks in, or you've done all the precincts. There aren't many of them in CD 8 Meck.

http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt

[BeFree]

71. Show me where it says OFFICIAL RESULTS

...on that page. The question is... is the website in error? And if it is which part is in error. And thank you for your attention.

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. indeed, attention must be paid

The two sets of numbers match. As you probably already know (I assume you have explored the Mecklenburg BoE web site?), if you go to
http://www.meckboe.org/ENR/MediaDownload.aspx
and click the link for "The latest Election Results File in readable format," you are taken to the dataset we have been discussing, which matches the numbers you are citing. Same numbers, different format -- except that the Election Results File has more information.

If you have some reason to believe that the "latest Election Results File" actually isn't the latest Election Results File, perhaps you will share it. The results could have been modified after the recount on November 29, but apparently the Meck recount didn't uncover any discrepancies.

"The question is... is the website in error? And if it is which part is in error."

As I have posted repeatedly, the turnout figures for each House race are in error -- verifiably so, because they do not add up to the total turnout.

EDIT TO ADD: And now, perhaps, you will deign to answer my questions in #69? You could just peek at eomer's work in the research thread.

[BeFree]

101. The two sets of numbers match?

On edit: the numbers do match. I have seen the light and the light is that the BoE screwed up big time. I hate to say it but otoh is right. But the official results are wrong. Can't trust the sobs at all.

Match what? They don't match each other, so you must be thinking of something else altogether. Here is a side by side comparison of the *MediaDownload* numbers you are messing with and below that the OFFICIAL RESULT numbers. See the differences? And you call that a "match"?

*MD*
Kissell.....Hayes.....Votes.....Voters

10,752.....5,040.....15,792.....16,480

Official Results
10,931.....5,157.....16,088.....19,287

Difference

...179.......117.......296.......2,807

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. wrong again

You will find the 179, 117, and 2807 in eomer's post #28 in that thread.

I'm sure you can understand this. But you have to want to understand it.

See also my latest post in that thread.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. OK, if you can multipost, so can I

What I presented are numbers direct from the Meck county BOE. Not numbers that have been shaped or cooked, but rather the numbers that are added together to create the numbers you quote.

Anyone who really wants to know the truth of this matter should look at the numbers him- or herself -- all the numbers -- and make their own determination.

http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt

[BeFree]

51. Yes, they could

Or, they could just go to this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x465196

and glean the information needed.

[EFerrari]

39. I'm just going to hide this thread and pretend I never read it. n/t

[Ellipsis]

40. Funny thats what I been thinking...

and FYI Will pitt's on Mike malloy right now.:hi: