Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 1

First discussion
Seems strange to include items from the campaign; would probably be better to separate the campaign from the election itself. 70.48.7.249 04:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I had wondered how to title it. I wanted to capture and summarise the major alleged irregularities (whether campaign or voting) for which there is evidence or significant belief that they may have affected the election in a manner not usually felt to be acceptable, so that one can read, check sources and decide for oneself what to believe, what to ignore.  As such, the title's as usual up for improvement if a better title would suit that area of interest. FT2 05:26, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps "List of things people who hate the results might say about the U.S. Presidential Election, 2004" would be a better title. Why else would the "Bush was wired" gripe be here? It's neither a voting irregularity nor a misrepresentation. And a list such as this really ought to state exactly who the "alligator" was. - Nunh-huh 05:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Tentative article description:  ...concerns and allegations raised relating to matters which if correctly specified, would possibly not have fallen within the scope of "generally acceptable US election activity".  I don't think it would be stretching the bounds to say that if Bush had been linked to people who could do research, make suggestions, give feedback, and prompt him during a debate, that would be an irregularity, if he falsely claimed it was a "shirt" that would be a misrepresentation in the US presidential election, and either way it would not be generally acceptable to voters who believed the debate to be fair.  (That is not advocating a position, it is explaining why it is relevant within this article).


 * Relevant (and supported) information needed by a reader interested in this and other possible or alleged key election irregularity issues is therefore stated for others to decide what if anything they think it signifies. What is beyond doubt is there are (and were) widespread allegations and concerns about certain election matters felt to be inappropriate or worrying (see links, use wiki search, or use google), so an article summarising the main ones, and analysing them, is likely to be of interest by definition to a large part of the USA as well as other countries.  FT2 05:26, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Note on wording, if needed: An aberration means "A deviation from the proper or expected course" or "A departure from the normal or typical". An anomaly or anomalous result means "Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule" or "One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify". The distinction is that an anomaly is more a "this looks odd", whereas an aberration is more where it is confirmed there is an actual deviation of some kind from the expected. (Source: Dictionary.com)

Capitalization?
The title and headings of this article seem capitalized beyond the manual of style. Is there a reason for this, or can they be fixed and the page moved? Cool Hand Luke  08:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Points added by Pedant
Pedant - you added 3 issues, namely: I've found and added a source for the 3rd, can you find a website source and county location for the 2nd?
 * Discrepancies in claimed totals of provisional ballots in Ohio
 * As many as 2000 "votes" present in at least one electronic voting machine before the polls opened
 * 3-hour gap in the audit record of at least one voting machine

Also the 1st of these seems a bit vague and might have been covered by information in the section "Evidence of electronic voting bias". Can you check if it is, find a source, or tighten it up by specifying what kind of "discrepancies"? Thanks FT2 14:04, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Title? (Needs Shortening)
How about just "Controversies with 20004 US Presdidential Election", or "2004 US Presidential Election Suspicious Activity", or even better "2004 US Election Irregularities", or "2004 US Election Fraud Theories" there may be irregularities outside the presidential part of the election. The electronic voting machines issues could be put into their own article. Zen Master 16:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think "fraud theories" would be borderline POV and should be avoided. -- Schnee 17:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I believe "Controversies" captures the gist of the currently way too long title.  So how about just "2004 US Election Controversies"? Zen Master 17:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2004 U.S. Election Controversies seems to work for the allegations of voter fraud, but not so much for the 2004 campaign. Perhaps a different page for 2004 U.S. Campaign Controversies? Jonked
 * "Election" includes the campaigns too I believe. Zen Master 18:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I support "2004 US election controversies" and changing all titles back to Wikipedia case. -- Felix Wan 20:39, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * Whatever you move it to, make sure you use proper capitalization. RickK 21:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's ok by me but I've been wondering generally what is the thinking behind requiring lower case after the first word? Zen Master 22:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A word like "controversy" doesnt do it for me. The subject of this article isnt discussion of a "controversy" (such as different views on "Do aliens exist" or "Was the election fixed"). Its an article summarising evidence, listing item by item specific irregularities and misrepresentations alleged to have taken place during the election, not an analysis or discussion of any controversy which may or may not have resulted from it. (A bit like an article summarising and referencing evidence such as Nazi orders, Mein Kampf, Zyklon purchases and photos of bodies, as distinct from the controversy "Did the Holocaust take place"). FT2 22:08, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt I am sure there are some that would say the conclusion it points to is controversial. While I agree with the distinct possibility of that conclusion a list of evidence is so far inconclusive.   I think "controversy" is much stronger than "irregularities" and "misrepresentations" which at best only sound strong to a statistical.  Regardless, do you agree the title is currently too long?  Zen Master 22:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * nods* Shorter would be better than longer, I agree. However accurate is also more important than vague. The article may lead to a controversial conclusion in some eyes, but it is for all that, a summary of sourced evidence, not a discussion of a controversy. (And I take your point about "only strong to a statistician", but maybe others can advise if its an accurate perception?) FT2 22:26, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me rephrase with a new question: the evidence may be 100% factual but the conclusion is not? That is why the title should be "controversy" in my opinion but I defer to the consensus of the group.  Why do you use "Allegations" if you believe it is a list of factual evidence?  How about "conspiracy" instead of "controversy"?  I dislike "misrepresentations" in the current title a lot (weak sounding).  How about "2004 US election discrepancies" or "2004 US election irregularities" or "Evidence of fraud in the 2004 US election" or "2004 US election irregularities" or "2004 US election conspiracy evidence"?  last one probably too strong. Zen Master 22:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No conclusion should be drawn in the article, no matter the evidence. That would be POV. There is evidence, and that is neutral and supported, but what it signifies is for a court to decide (which it may never do fairly to people's satisfaction, a lot of bona fide issues never reach the courts or are perceived to be whitewashed). Words like "conspiracy" ... well, we all know a few dozen conspiracy theories, its the next best thing to "dubious" which is unfortunate since "Evidence of 2004 US election conspiracy" might otherwise work. More important, a title that asserted there was a conspiracy, or votes were rigged, would be POV. "Allegations and evidence of fraud in the 2004 US election"? "Allegations of voting irregularities in the 2004 US election"? But then some of the alleged unacceptable practices were not voting fraud either. For now I agree its a mouthful, but at least its an accurate mouthful.  Maybe others will have good suggestions. FT2 22:58, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Presenting "facts" without counter argument or really mentioning the presumed conclusion is also POV wouldn't you say? What is being "alleged" exactly, since you say this is a list of factual evidence?  If there are "allegations" then a "controversy" exists???  We should mention the conclusion in the article (with caveats) directly, don't beat around the bush (pun-intended).  I can not stress enough how horrible the current title is on many levels, hopefully someone else will come up with something even better.  Should we create a time limit of a few hours after which we will fix the title ourselves absent a better one?  Zen Master 23:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the simplest way is to just chop off the "allegations of". Another suggestion: "2004 US Election problems"? Kevin Baas | talk 23:16, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

I would think '2004 U.S. Election Controversies' is fine. Controversies suggest (to me at least) something that is was questionable or unorthodox. But it also suggest public uproar. As far as I see it, there is no public uproar. But 'irregularities' suggest voting and 'misrepresentation' refers only to a small part of the campaign. 'Problem' seems too vague to me. Jonked Nov. 6, 2004
 * "2004 U.S. election controversies" seems to cover it. And just to let you know, Jonked, many protests and such have been staged in the past few days over the election, including in Ohio, and Colorado (these were the two I could find articles on quickly). Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]] 00:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If a protest hasn't disrupted my bus schedule and made me late for school, it doesn't exist. But your right. Just because the mainstream media considers the matter closed, doesn't mean people aren't in an uproat about it. Jonked Nov. 6, 2004
 * That wouldnt be too bad I spose. "2004 U.S. Election Controversies and Irregularities" sounds better though as it highlights that there actually were irregularities not just "controversy".  Would that work? FT2 01:49, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good but make everything but "U.S." lower case. As I noted in new section below, there are "other" 2004 US Election articles that don't go into much detail about the controversies or link to this page, tad suspicious, we should combine such pages?  We should add links to this page on those pages too after we rename this page?  How did the "in progress" seemingly tangential election article get started? Zen Master 02:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004 US President Election Complaints? Rhobile 12:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voting Machine Humor Section
Is this section really needed? It seems a little unrelated to me. Perhaps it should be added to a page on Political Humor? Jonked

I agree. It is not necessary to document every idea even remotely connected to the 2004 election. Why not have a section titled, "Opinions of the 2004 election from people who Jacob Winters knows now, but did now know prior to the 2000 election"? Obviously, the line must be drawn somewhere. Jwinters

I removed it. I didn't see any place to move it to though. Jonked Nov. 6, 2004


 * The reason it was there is, it highlights the popular antipathy and distrust of the machines. The animation did not have a machine showing a bush supporter randomly voting kerry for example. But its borderline. I think it has a place. I'd like to hear what others feel too. FT2 02:02, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Exit poll section
We should put these figures on the page:  To show why it's such a hot topic. We should also calculate the statistical likilihood that this happened by chance. Does anyone know the sample size of the exit polls, or the error margin? Kevin Baas | talk 23:13, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * Wisconsin
 * Bush plus 4%
 * Pennnsylvannia
 * Bush plus 5%
 * Ohio
 * Bush plus 4%
 * Florida
 * Bush plus 7%
 * Minnesota
 * Bush plus 7%
 * New Hampshire
 * Bush plus 15%
 * North Carolina'
 * Bush plus 9%

Um, what do those numbers mean? If we are going to add it, it's going to need it to be a little clearer. Jonked


 * Way ahead of ya, thats already in the article, and analysed and sourced. FT2 01:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

We Should Combine This Page With The "Other" 2004 US Election Pages
I just noticed there are "other" non "in progress" 2004 US election pages that don't go into much detail about any of the controversies (or have links). Should an effort be undertaken to combine the pages or share the info? Currently the page U.S._Presidential_Election,_2004 is linked to from the Main Page/front door. Zen Master 01:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) (links fixed - FT2)
 * Which pages are you thinking of? FT2 02:02, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * U.S._Presidential_Election,_2004 and the senate and house election pages too. Zen Master 02:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarification, I meant to say there were discrepencies between the "in progress" election page and the non in progress pages (presidental, house, senate), not "this" allegations page. I.E. differences between these two pages 2004_U.S._election_in_progress and U.S._presidential_election,_2004 and the senate and house pages too. That presidential article is currently the election page linked to from the Main Page/Front Door.... There is no reason that page needs to have a comma in its title Zen Master 02:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those other pages have their own purposes: This is not a discussion of the election, neither is the election article a full summary of evidence of irregularities. They're connected though but separate. Hope that helps. FT2 16:38, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * U.S._presidential_election,_2004 is a general article on the election, so it covers the election issues, bush, kerry, the various debates, media views, etc etc etc.
 * 2004_U.S._election_in_progress was the article used to track the election on the day, and was updated "live" as the election proceeded. I'm not sure its significance now except as a moment by moment history of the day.
 * This article relates to one specific and clearly defined issue, namely evidence related to claims made both by others external to Wikipedia, or referenced to on other pages, of iregularities in the debate or improper influencing of the result.

New Title suggestion by Rhobile ''moved to "Title" section. FT2''

Title Change
Title changed to "2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities" FT2 17:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * This title doesn't work:
 * It doesn't follow Wikipedia style for article titles ("Election" shouldn't be capitalized).
 * It's POV to imply that there were irregularities. By contrast, "controversies", "disputes", "allegations" and "charges" are examples of words that are acceptable because they make clear the contested status of the issues addressed.
 * Although this one's harder to deal with, I'd like to see a title that's more precise as to the nature of the controversies or whatever they're called. For example, one controversy in the election was whether to repeal Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000, but that's not what's meant here.
 * How about: "2004 U.S. election voting controversies"? JamesMLane 04:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe "irregularities" is appropriate from a statistical analysis perspective. The title is not saying these irregularities are definitely from fraud, it's simply pointing to apparent factual irregularities in the data, people are free to disagree by offering other view points that might explain them away.  Also, check the talk history, we discussed this title for more than a little while.  Zen Master 04:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right that the word "irregularities" is defensible from a statistician's perspective, but most people aren't statisticians. Most people (or at least many people) would take "irregularities" as indicating some impropriety, whether from fraud or from innocently malfunctioning machines.  The title has been under discussion for only three days; I did read this entire Talk page before commenting, but few things on Wikipedia can ever be regarded as set in stone, and certainly not after three days. JamesMLane 05:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Irregularities just means there's data that needs an explanation, either there was fraud or we/someone will gain knowledge of improved exit polling techniques or any number of other explanations. I think most people would say there was little about this election that was regular.  Exit polling is a good check and balance against fraud, it should not be discounted (e.g. so it can be used and relied upon the next time).  Does wikipedia operate on the basis of a concrete definition of a word or upon perception?  Maybe we could define irregularity at the top of the article to allay your concerns?  Perhaps the exit poll article needs more details with actual mathematical techniques included and this article could link to that as well? "Exit polling" would be more appropriate. Zen Master 05:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you want to put the focus on arguably anomalous data that need an explanation, how about "2004 U.S. election voting questions"? JamesMLane 05:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I voted for just "controversies" originally, so others will have to do any further defending of "irregularities". Though what is more anomalous and irregular than exit polling data in every swing state disagreeing with the results to bush's benefit in each case?  The odds of that happening by chance are pretty low apparently.  We could add "data" before "irregularities" but that sounds worse as a title perhaps.  The diebold information is more than a question, it's a controversy so we can't remove that. Zen Master 05:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See below, I've asked Kevin Baas if he can work another wonder like he did with the current maps, on exit vs popular voting from other elections and issues too. FT2 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Include non-voting irregularities from the election?
Zen-master commented out the sections related to different areas of non-vote irregularities, on the basis they "cluttered up the point of the article and was inappropriately located here". I can see his point, and agree the article is cleaner as a result. But nonetheless knowledge and information pertaining to election questions has been lost. As Zen-master says, "inappropriately located here" ... where should evidenced and supported matters such as these be put? (the original text is here, see sections 3 and 4) FT2 17:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good question, I agree it should be put somewhere. I guess my point of commenting it out was that it's not relevant to a article about election fraud/vote rigging controversies as it's at best a tangential issue, and there is little way to conclusively "prove" one way or the other, all u need is the image and either you believe the lump under the President's suit was a listening device or something else like a bullet proof vest or just a crease.  I personally believe they can make listening devices a lot smaller than that, but most importantly I believe any debate listening device controversy is a few orders of magnitude smaller scale of importance than potential election fraud, so we should focus this article on that.
 * Makes sense to me. I'd go with that view. FT2 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * We could create an article about the 3 Prez + 1 VP debates during the 2004 election? And add a controversy sub section to that?  Are transcripts to the presidential debates public domain? Zen Master 04:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Already exists at U.S. presidential election debates, 2004 and, despite its title, it does include the VP debates. JamesMLane 04:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent, then we should just create a controversy section there and move the commented out information? (that article already has images of the bush bulge and kerry object [pen] controversies). We could probably do a massive categorization and multiple linking amongst all the 2004 election articles?   Zen Master 05:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That too already exists. I haven't compared the information that was at one point in this article, but it would be worthwhile for you or someone to examine U.S. presidential election debates, 2004 and see if anything about the bulge or the pen hasn't been covered.  JamesMLane 05:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Any news on this yet? FT2 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Request for information
Does anyone know a way to get a map showing the differences between (exit poll figures) and (official votes cast)? The question's sparked by the maps added by User:Kevin baas, what I'm looking for (and haven't seen yet) is a similar map. Anyone got any ideas? I believe theres already a link on the page sourcing some exit poll and final vote figures for different states, but I dont know if its sufficient.

It would be helpful to show comparative maps of the difference between voting according to exit polls, and voting according to machine, and compare that to a map picking out swing and nonswing (or republican and democrat) states. FT2 18:12, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this would be wonderfull! It would also be nice if this could be broken down by county in states with anomalous discrepencies (>=4%), if at all possible. Kevin Baas | talk 21:32, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that there was a correlation between accuracy of initial exit polls and whether or not the county used electronic voting (or maybe a specific type of electronic voting)... anyone know anything about this or just wishful thinking? --kizzle 21:37, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

The complaints and insinuations about exit polling are unfounded. 216.153.214.94 22:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

216.153.214.94071404, I am not convinced. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a good job that we aren't arbitrating which of your POV's are "right", so much as summarising relevant public domain information which could be used to gain a deeper understanding of the issue then. FT2 15:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV question
One user added an NPOV tag, citing that it was "very anti-bush" and did not contain their responses.

I have removed this tag, my reasons being basically, this is not an advocacy article. It does not take sides. It lists certain statements, depositions, sourced facts and verified matters which taken together are evidence for or against claims that some irregularities may have occurred. So the objection that one side has not yet posted an advocacy rebuttal is irrelevant. This article is not discussing the controversy, it is summarising the documentary, expert, testimonial and forensic evidence upon which any such controversy would be based.

On occasion personal statements by individuals (including Mr Bush) are included, where necessary the article also attempts to summarise points for and against the reliability of such statements, as evidence. (A couple of times this has been done by noting the statement was made by a Kerry supporter or a Bush supporter, so that its POV if any can be assessed by the reader)

Thus the criteria for this article is not "what each side says", and no responses by either "side" are needed to make it neutral. The neutrality criteria is (1) that the information contained must be accurate capable of verification, and must be sourced, and (2) that evidence of irregularities and evidence that there were not irregularities are both fairly represented. Any item listed in this evidence which later turns out to be incorrect or suspect as to accuracy, should be removed or updated.

Should any person on either side wish to add any kind of evidence that the election was not in fact irregular, evidence that the voting machines were in fact not subject to irregularities, evidence that any item on this article is inaccurate, or evidence that any expert statement is implausible and suspect, then that should be added to this article. FT2 17:21, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Are people broadly ok with that? (FT2)


 * (late note: section added for official viewpoints and responses, on reflection I think is a good idea, thanks Lowellian. FT2 17:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am very happy with that! :) Kevin Baas | talk 20:48, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)