Reply #31: david - I have no idea - [View All]

[gulogulo]

but riddle me this: if you (like TIA and Raul etc) believe that exit polls must be right and the election results must confirm them, please explain how come Nader's partial recount of NH, where the deviation between exit polls and election results was in double digits, and the recount precincts were hand picked by DU's own Ida Briggs in order to find the ones that showed the highest differences between 2000 and 2004, still no significant difference was found between the recount numbers and the election day counts?

Look at this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1118-03.htm

Recount New Hampshire
Just how accurate are optical scanners? A special recount may give an answer.

by Russ Baker


Tomorrow the first recount begins--in New Hampshire, of all places, a state George Bush didn't even win. But in those areas where he did well, sometimes the numbers look decidedly odd. In this case, the person who got the ball rolling was one Ida Briggs, a longtime Michigan software designer and database developer who did a statistical analysis of some election results, and found them perplexing enough to trigger concerns in her mind about the efficacy of the electronic vote tabulation system used.

...

Referring to the recount advocates, a Diebold spokesman told the Associated Press, "I think they're rushing to judgment."

...

If it turns out that anomalies are just that, so be it. Then we need to spend more time understanding why people voted--really, truly voted--the way they did.

-------------

Do you see that last sentence? Today we know that the recounts showed that the exit polls were bunk, the "anomalies" were "just that" - but funny how still no one is trying to "spend more time understanding".