Register to reply

Ohio 2005 vote

by pattylou
Tags: 2005, ohio, vote
Share this thread:
Gokul43201
#19
Nov13-05, 07:03 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
Haven't yet read the OP so I reserve comment on that.

As for that link, here's one I found : http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/...the_pro_4.html
Evo
#20
Nov13-05, 07:07 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,541
Reminds me of the 2004 Ohio exit polls that were so far off.
scott1
#21
Nov13-05, 07:19 PM
P: 459
It's political conspiracy I'am not sure there was a problem or not but even if they didn't have electronic voting machines someones going to come some kind of conspriacy about they didn't election.It's somthing polticans do they blame everthing on someone or something elese it's.There's always this conspiracy about electronic booths there really it is big problem with them just everone thinks hackers hack into them which the goverment should have good encryption for this problem or don't use the Internet just have the votes put some kind removable storge drive.
pattylou
#22
Nov13-05, 09:25 PM
P: 1,036
OMG.

I found a second, pre-election poll.

http://www.uakron.edu/news/articles/uamain_1351.php
• Similar evidence suggests that Issue 2, one of the “Reform Ohio Now” proposals on early voting, also seems likely to win approval barring a major change. It also was backed by more than three-fifths of likely voters.
(Issue two was recorded on election day as having only 36% support!)

This poll is independent of the Dispatch poll ... but comes to the same conclusions: 1, 2, and 3 should pass comfortably. As it turns out ... 2 and 3 were defeated soundly -- in a manner that meant that the polling numbers were off by roughly 30 points.

One (conservative) blogger concludes that these polling organisations should go into hiding, because .... their methodology is so flawed. (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.)

http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=804

Hmmm. I also posted on the Ohio forum at black box voting. I am curious if they have any other poll sources/ideas.

I agree with several news sources I read that indicate that the wording on the issues was unclear. That seems standard for many propositions. The lack of clarity would predispose people to vote "no." But, a thirty point swing (in separate independent polls) is awfully big to be accounted for by that sole possibility.
Bystander
#23
Nov13-05, 10:46 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 1,384
Two polls, days before the election predict passage, and things go down on election day. Have you got an exact copy of the ballot? I've seen wording on ballots that would take longer to decipher than it did the Rosetta Stone. The pollsters paraphrase things to something that can be asked and understood in 5 sec, "Are you in favor of ______," conditioning people to think "yes," and a ballot issue is worded in a way that requires a "no" to get the result the voter favors, and you've got the makings of the situation you describe.
pattylou
#24
Nov13-05, 10:54 PM
P: 1,036
Have you got an exact copy of the ballot?
Here you go, from this site: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw...2005/index.php

State Issue 2 - Certified Ballot Language
Includes Arguments and Explanations
November 8, 2005


PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
(Proposed by Initiative Petition)

To adopt Section 6 of Article XVII of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

In order to expand to all electors the choice to vote by absentee ballot in all elections, this amendment would:

Provide that any person qualified to vote in an election is entitled during the thirty-five days prior to the election to receive and to cast a ballot by mail or in person at the county board of elections or additional location designated by the board. No reason for casting such a ballot shall be required. When a ballot is mailed to an elector, the county board of elections shall also provide a pre-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope for returning the ballot to that county board of elections.

An elector to whom a ballot has been mailed, but which has not been received by the issuing county board of elections prior to the election, may cast a provisional ballot on election day. If the elector’s first ballot is received by the tenth day following the election, the provisional ballot shall not be counted. A ballot which is received by the issuing board by mail no later than the tenth day following the election shall be treated as timely cast if it contains a postmark not later than the day of the election.
A majority yes vote is necessary for passage.

SHALL THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED?
YES
NO
Your description:
conditioning people to think "yes," and a ballot issue is worded in a way that requires a "no" to get the result the voter favors, and you've got the makings of the situation you describe.
unfortunately, doesn't seem to apply.

(Incidentally, I'm staying focused on issue, 2 for no particular reason. The link will take you to the wording for the other issues as well.)
Bystander
#25
Nov13-05, 11:31 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 1,384
Looks pretty straightforward --- I was thinking of something like "Shall the State of Ohio not adopt a resolution to not disallow early/absentee voting." I just typed it, and I don't know whether I need to vote "yes" or "no" to be able to vote early.

Second paragraph is going to be interpreted as a license to vote twice, and as an expensive headache as far as counting votes --- may have been an election day turn-off. Early voting? Love it. Implementing that paragraph? I'd be inclined to send it back to the legislature, or the initiative group, whichever, to see if they can get it right.

Other BIIGGG question in peoples' minds is going to be how they're going to go about guaranteeing a secret ballot given an identified "provisional" in storage for ten days, to be deleted upon appearance of an identified "early" ballot through the mails.
Skyhunter
#26
Nov14-05, 12:31 AM
P: 1,409
I have not read all the links, but the California polls show a trend from yes to no each week.

Was there a similar trend in Ohio?
kat
#27
Nov14-05, 05:48 AM
kat's Avatar
P: 58
It seems to me that if there was an issue with "hacking" into electronic voting systems then the counties using punch card systems would show a trend that follows polls. They don't appear to do that.... in fact even in counties such as athens where it is predominately democrat (were these not Soros backed iniatives?) question two still failed.
Here are the county by county voting numbers :http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/Elect...x?Section=1180
and here is county by county, the type of voting machines used:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifi...std&state=Ohio
I don't see any with even a slight majority going for question number 2. It appears to be soundly defeated even in punch card counties.
I would have been interested to have seen how trading at tradesports was reflected by votes in ohio but unfortunately they are no longer up.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ohio State Academic Guidance 12
Ohio State vs Michigan General Discussion 34
Ohio 5 4 70 Current Events 0
Linguists Vote 'Truthiness' Word of 2005 General Discussion 18