So it's unanimous. They're obviously undermining the democratic system all across the states. No one is safe.Pengwuino said:
Smurf said:
No, I didn't realize. I had thought they matched the pre-election polling numbers within a few percentage points. Got a reference? (not rhetorical, I'd like to see one.)Pengwuino said:
From your source from the above link
Prop 73:
yes 44 47.4
no 56 52.6
difference 3%
Prop 74:
yes 46 45
no 54 55
difference 1%
Prop 75:
yes 52 46.6
no 47 53.4
difference 5%
Prop 76:
yes 34 38
no 66 62
difference 4%
Prop 77:
yes 40 40.5
no 60 59.5
difference 0.5%
Prop 78:
yes 49 41.5
no 51 58.5
difference 7.5%
Prop 79:
yes 49 38.9
no 51 61.1
difference 10%
Prop 80:
yes 37 34.3
no 63 65.7
difference 3%lol. Interesting how you use 'democrat' and 'conservative' as if they're not the same thing.Pengwuino said:
Pengwuino said:
As I said in post 7, I couldn't find much else. This was also the basis for the question in the first post.Pengwuino said:
I don't know if this is accurate statement. The link Penguino provided said it had a margin of error of 5%. There were about 500 - 600 respondents. A ten point error is a SD or two beyond what is expected. You get that sort of deviation a small percentage of the time.faust9 said:
pattylou said:
Smurf said:
Indeed.Pengwuino said:
pattylou said:
The Columbus Dispatch has a more accurate polling result history than virtually any organization in the country (Zogby, Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen, AP, etc. don't come close, from what I've heard). This is what the Dispatch is famous for, and they take pride in it. I'll see if I can find a link to confirm this.Pengwuino said:
(Um ... the other possibility - that the two independent and consistent polls might be a more accurate reflection of voter intent than the post-electronic-vote-machine count - seems to be staring us in the face.)unfortunately, doesn't seem to apply.
Unusual election results in Ohio can be defined in a few different ways. It could refer to unexpected or unexpected changes in voter turnout, disproportionate or suspiciously high vote counts for a particular candidate, or patterns of irregularities in the voting process. It is important to have a clear definition in order to effectively investigate these results.
There are several methods that can be used to investigate unusual election results in Ohio. These can include statistical analyses, forensic audits of voting equipment, interviews with election officials and poll workers, and examining voting patterns and data. It is important to use a combination of methods in order to get a comprehensive understanding of the election results.
The responsibility for investigating unusual election results in Ohio falls on the state's election officials and governing bodies. This could include the Secretary of State's office, the state board of elections, or other agencies tasked with overseeing elections. It may also involve outside experts or independent organizations that have been brought in to assist with the investigation.
There are a variety of potential causes for unusual election results in Ohio. These could include human error, technical malfunctions in voting equipment, voter fraud or manipulation, inadequate training of poll workers, or external influences such as hacking or interference. It is important to thoroughly investigate and rule out all possible causes before coming to any conclusions.
There are several steps that can be taken to ensure fair and accurate election results in Ohio. These include regular maintenance and testing of voting equipment, comprehensive training for poll workers, implementing strict security measures to prevent tampering or interference, and promoting transparency in the election process. It is also important for election officials to be proactive in addressing any issues or concerns that arise during or after an election.