Ohio 2005 vote

  • News
  • Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date
  • #1
288
0
Some of these numbers look very funny. Anyone know any more about this? Like other polls that might be more in line with the actual results that were observed last week?

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1559

And thus the possible explanations for the staggering defeats of Issues Two through Five boil down to two: either the Dispatch polling---dead accurate for Issue One---was wildly wrong beyond all possible statistical margin of error for Issues 2-5, or the electronic machines on which Ohio and much of the nation conduct their elections were hacked by someone wanting to change the vote count.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
You do realize California's proposition results were waaaaaaay off what the pollers had predicted as well...

Mountain out of a molehill...
 
  • #3
356
3
Pengwuino said:
You do realize California's proposition results were waaaaaaay off what the pollers had predicted as well...
So it's unanimous. They're obviously undermining the democratic system all across the states. No one is safe.
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Smurf said:
So it's unanimous. They're obviously undermining the democratic system all across the states. No one is safe.
who is though? democrat and conservative propositions both got shot down. Get outa here with your conspiracy theories :tongue:
 
  • #5
288
0
Pengwuino said:
You do realize California's proposition results were waaaaaaay off what the pollers had predicted as well...

Mountain out of a molehill...
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.)

The ohio numbers were off by 30 points from the pre-election polls, if the linked report is right. Is that a "molehill?" (Also not rhetorical) :confused:

I eagerly await your response to the above two queries, and if this somehow gets missed by you (ie if you don't respond) I'll bump the thread up to bring it back to your attention. Cuz I'd like that reference, as well as your opinion if 30 points (out of 100) constitutes a molehill.

Patty
 
  • #6
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Stanford's polling information is here

http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/appendix%20to%2011-07-2005%20Hoover-KN%20press%20release.pdf [Broken]

8% is a big one....

I forget who the other polling companies were that i saw on this one site... i know pollusa was one but not going to include that since they are very new and would be attacked as "conservative bias"...

does USA today do a poll haha
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
288
0
Thank you Penguino. The 8% swing is "news to me" and I appreciate the link.

I've tried to find the poll in the Columbus Dispatch that the link in the OP mentions. Evidently it is only available if you register which carries a charge that I don't want to pay. I found little else in the news regarding pre-election polls in Ohio.
 
  • #8
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Annd patty, can you find a non-bias website for that article. I mean when i read 'official vote count on november 8' (uhm, you mean unofficial polling by independant polling organizations?) and 'statistical impossibility' (as it pertains to an eleciton)... i figured this wasn't a real article with any journalistic integrity.
 
  • #9
691
1
http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm [Broken]

Penguion:

Code:
		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%
The largest divergence from the California special election was ~10%; however the trend was accure i.e. the pre-election polling showed a defeat and the results were just that---a defeat. 10% is within what most engineers(or statistitions) would consider an acceptible result.

The Ohio election shows a 30% swing though. 30% swings in election results are signs of tampering in other countries; moreover, as patty's article startes:

The Dispatch was somehow dead accurate on Issue One, and then staggeringly wrong on Issues Two through Five. Sadly, this impossible inconsistency between Ohio's most prestigious polling operation and these final official referendum vote counts have drawn virtually no public scrutiny.
How do you account for that?

You can remove all of the words from the article but you are still left the actual results and the Dispatch's poll. You can attack the article if you want but that DOESN'T change the huge disperity between the poll conducted 4 days prior to the election and the results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
356
3
Pengwuino said:
who is though? democrat and conservative propositions both got shot down.
lol. Interesting how you use 'democrat' and 'conservative' as if they're not the same thing.
 
  • #11
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Pengwuino said:
who is though? democrat and conservative propositions both got shot down. Get outa here with your conspiracy theories :tongue:
Must be the legislators themselves. They're the only people in whose interest it is for no propositions to pass.
 
  • #12
288
0
Pengwuino said:
Annd patty, can you find a non-bias website for that article. I mean when i read 'official vote count on november 8' (uhm, you mean unofficial polling by independant polling organizations?) and 'statistical impossibility' (as it pertains to an eleciton)... i figured this wasn't a real article with any journalistic integrity.
As I said in post 7, I couldn't find much else. This was also the basis for the question in the first post.

You act as though every liberal is trying to fight with you Penguino, but it ain't so. It's not worth the time. As I said initially, "Does anyone know anything about this? Does anyone know of other sources for pre-election poll numbers? The numbers look funny."

The numbers (not the bias in the link) are the most interesting bit. The numbers in the link appear at first blush to be correct --- Ex: several independent news articles pre-election predicted that issues 1, 2, and 3 would pass.

A link for you:

http://www.dispatch.com/election.php?story=dispatch/2005/11/06/20051106-A1-01.html [Broken]

This is from before the election, and claims that issues 2 and 3 appeared supported in the Columbus Dispatch poll, and that the poll had a margin of eror of 2-3 points.

Voters apparently are ready to reform Ohio now — but only partway.

In a nationally watched battle that could alter the landscape of Ohio politics, two of four statewide electionrelated issues seem ripe for passage in Tuesday’s election, a new Dispatch Poll shows.

Ohioans appear ready to approve much stricter campaign-contribution limits and "no-excuse-needed" early voting.
IOW, the results in the biased article with which I started the thread, appear accurately reported. A thirty point swing is remarkable, to say the least! Wouldn't you agree?

The authors of the article in the link in the OP have a bias. But as Faust said, was there really a 30 point spread in pre-election polls and results? (I don't know.) If there is, isn't that a red flag? Answer: YES. The Columbus Dispatch has been polling for decades, and is routinely within 3 points (according to the link in the original post.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
288
0
faust9 said:
10% is within what most engineers(or statistitions) would consider an acceptible result.
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.

The Dispatch poll claimed a margin of error of 2 - 3 %. There were about 1800 respondents. A thirty point error is *many* SD's beyond what you expect, at least I would guess this to be the case without seeing the raw data.

In other words, there may have been fraud in CA, but if there was, the numbers in Ohio are a dead giveaway that there was fraud in Ohio, and on isses that were written to prevent election fraud.

I'd still like to see other pre-election polls, and haven't found any yet. It's possible that this particular Dispatch poll was an outlyer compared to other polls. The link in the original post appears biased, that's plain to see.
 
  • #14
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
pattylou said:
the numbers in Ohio are a dead giveaway that there was fraud in Ohio
Or that the polling was done incorrectly.... find proof before making accusations. I mean we all must act rational here... we're not the "guilty before proven innocent" democrats that are prevelant throughout the liberal world.

I also gotta agree... 10% is fairly unacceptable (and to say engineers believe 10% margin of error is acceptable.... :surprised :surprised :surprised). The acceptable margin of error is.... well basically what they say their margin of error is. I'm finding a few decently reputable sources saying there was a lot of confusion and irresponsible behavior in a few counties... but no one even mentiosn fraud.
 
  • #15
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Smurf said:
lol. Interesting how you use 'democrat' and 'conservative' as if they're not the same thing.
haha oops, guess i got sidetracked there. I meant liberal and conservative issues
 
  • #16
288
0
Pengwuino said:
Or that the polling was done incorrectly.....
Indeed.

I wonder if anyone has (or can find) any other pre election polls to compare to the Dispatch's numbers ... (As I have mentioned several times in this thread. )
 
  • #17
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
pattylou said:
Indeed.
I wonder if anyone has (or can find) any other pre election polls to compare to the Dispatch's numbers ... (As I have mentioned several times in this thread. )
USA Today and Stanford must have done polls....

And this 30% thing seems rather exagerated. Statstically, in that worst case initiative, only 10% of the decided had to jump ship (neglecting margin of error as well) for the results to come out the way it did. Another thing.... how the hell did they get so many undecided voters? Almost every california poll had.. 3.. 4 percent undecided and these guys had something like 25% undecided?
 
  • #18
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Pengwuino said:
Or that the polling was done incorrectly....
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.
 
  • #20
Evo
Mentor
23,156
2,815
Reminds me of the 2004 Ohio exit polls that were so far off.
 
  • #21
330
1
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.
 
  • #22
288
0
OMG.

I found a second, pre-election poll.

http://www.uakron.edu/news/articles/uamain_1351.php [Broken]
• 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.:rolleyes: (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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
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.
 
  • #24
288
0
Have you got an exact copy of the ballot?
Here you go, from this site: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/election2005/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.)
 
  • #25
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
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.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Ohio 2005 vote

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Top