Talk:2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression

Cleanup
This page needs cleanup and NPOVing for reason stated on this page (see further down), as well as details mentioned at its VfD, which wre never addressed. -R. fiend 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Voter registration suppression?
Cuyahoga County Votes Finally Certified



Kevin Baas | talk 19:09, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

"Mr Arnebeck said that hearings held in Ohio cities have brought to light new evidence of malpractice. He said one voter of a pro-Republican group caught destroying Democratic registration documents in Nevada before the election, had also been operating in Ohio."

Kevin Baas | talk 03:30, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Machine shortages, Cuyahoga County
What do you think about replacing the Kerry Support vs. Turnout graph with this one? A scatter plot is the usual way to show correlation. And a weighted regression is really needed to determine whether all those odd outliers in the lower-right quadrant of the graph are really significant.



rerdavies 06:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice. I agree completely. My only contention is that the graph posted is for cuyahoga precincts, whereas the one up right now is for ohio counties (state-wide). The graph you made is similiar to the vote suppression->voting machine shortages for cuyahoga county. Kevin Baas | talk 18:28, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Nevermind, that's what you're talking about. Ya. I think it's great. The graph is beautiful. I'm going to switch it out right now. BTW, I put a section header on this talk page subject. Kevin Baas | talk 18:34, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Precinct-level Ohio machine shortage, Ken Blackwell
A source with some good info:. I remember another one, talked about precincts, including loss of precincts, so-called "squeezing", so-called "active voters" vs. "registered voters", archiac paper thickness restriction on absentee ballots being applied, etc. Kevin Baas | talk 17:35, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC) Oh yes, here it is. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

On voting machine shortages in Ohio
"An analysis of the Franklin County Board of Elections’ allocation of machines reveals a consistent pattern of providing fewer machines to the Democratic city of Columbus, with its Democratic mayor and uniformly Democratic city council, despite increased voter registration in the city."

"...while voters waited in lines ranging from 2-7 hours at polling places, 68 electronic voting machines remained in storage and were never used on Election Day."

"The result was an obvious disparity in machine allocations compared to the primarily Republican white affluent suburbs"

From a column by Bob Fitrakis for The Free Press noosphere 23:14, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Precinct squeeze
"Of Ohio’s 88 counties, 20 suffered a significant reduction — shutting at least 20 percent (or at least 30) of their precincts. Most of those counties have Republicans serving as Board of Elections director, including the four biggest: Cuyahoga, Montgomery, Summit, and Lucas.

''Those 20 counties went heavily to Gore in 2000, 53 to 42 percent. The other 68 counties, which underwent little-to-no precinct consolidation, went exactly the opposite way in 2000: 53 to 42 percent to Bush."''

From:(Boston Phoenix). Kevin Baas | talk 20:49, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Info to add

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

To include?
There is a lot of specific info out there on freepress and other sources, should all of those be integrated into this article and if so, how? Kevin Baastalk 00:37, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Something should be included in this article about the dozens of GOP rented vans which had their tires slashed by five Kerry-Edwards campaign staffers, including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democratic politicians on the night before election day. Criminal charges have been filed, and the case is currently ongoing. 1, 2, 3 --BaronLarf 21:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is about disenfranchisement. That did not disenfranchise any voters. Kevin Baastalk 17:59, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * I thought the article was about voter suppression. Tire-slashing of get-out-the-vote vehicles obviously had voter suppression as a motive.  --BaronLarf 18:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not suppress votes. The motive is unclear, most likely it was an expression of extreme discontent with the policies of the Bush administration. The motive, anyways, is irrelevant.  This article is not about motives.  Nowhere in the article are motivations discussed.  Only empirical phenomena; facts and data regarding votes and lack thereof. Notice that the scale of each irregularity is in the thousands of votes.  At most, the tire slashing could have affected a handfull of votes, but there are no indications that it affected any.  A ratio of at least a thousand to at most 20 is 500 to 1.  On average each irregularity is covered by less than 500 words. Thus, to put this event in representative proportion, it word recieve, were there actually indications that it suppressed votes, at best, less than a word.  Representing things out of proportion is a form of POV/bias.  This is not about people being angry or sad, or what have you.  It's about popular suffrage.  If you can find voting irregularities that affected in the range of at least a thousand votes, then they belong here, but guesses of motivation, or discussion about motivation, or anything of the sort, even in regard to votes that were actually suppressed and where comparatively significant in quantity of votes affected with reasonable certainty, does not. Kevin Baastalk 14:26, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Arizona
-needs to be integrated into the article. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:11, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

???
Does this sentence make sense: "This means that, where support for Kerry was high, the voters didn't turnout, for whatever reason"? If the voters didn't turn out, then how was support for Kerry "high"? We have no real data to use to gauge Kerry support except voter turnout. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
 * Voter registration, past voting history, pre-election polls. And most specifically, vote spread (kerry<->bush). support for kerrry in contrast to bush. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Graphs are highly suspect
These graphs do not appear to be from a reputable source, and are suspect on their merits as well. In particular, they seem to be attempting to do linear regression on obviously nonlinear data, which results in basically drawing a meaningless line through a scatterplot. But in any case, the data analysis seems to have been done specifically by Wikipedians for this article, which violates No original research. --Delirium 09:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the source of the graphs is RAW DATA, which is a pretty "reputable source". The raw data comes from the Ohio Department of Elections (DOE) office.  Granted, they have gotten a bad reputation from all this, but, but that doesn't speak to the accuracy of the data except insofar as the discrepancies in the canvass report overwhelmingly benefit bush, which means that if the votes were counted more accurately, they would in all probability lead to even more extraordinary graphs, rather than less.  But in any case, I would love to see you call up Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and tell him that he's not a "reputable source".  Frankly, I agree with you on this much.


 * As is pretty obvious (and unsurprising), the data is very linear (a gaussian distribution on one axis, with a (theoretically) flat distribution on the other. Any competent statistician can tell you just by looking at them that statistical analysis would show very high correlation.  But I concede that the trendlines are pretty meaningless: It's really quite obvious what the trends are without them.  The word "unneccessary" would more aptly describe them.


 * Some of the graphs were recreations of the same graphs from the raw data, said original graphs (and corresponding research) not being created (done) specifically for this article, and being widely distributed and often recreated. Having become so known (well before they were put in the article), they are an important part of the history of the controversy; an artifact. Kevin Baastalk: new


 * The raw data is fine; the line fitting is not raw data, but original research analyzing the data, and IMO poor research that does not hold up to statistical standards. If it is well-known, do you have any references to reputable sources in which these analyses were published?  There have been hundreds of journal articles on the election controversy, but none I have found include this sort of analysis, because it does not meet academic standards. --Delirium 16:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the "line fitting" (statistical regression analysis), you qualm is with Excel, Microsoft, and the mathematicans who developed statistical regression analysis. How do you know why you haven't found this in the articles you read; how did you learn from these journals that the reason was so? Kevin baas 21:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And BTW, the voting machine distribution data was presented at a U.S. House Judiciary Committee public hearing in Franklin County, Ohio. And the analysis was done by an University Professor, among other people.  Part of it was included in his Ohio Supreme Court deposition in Moss v. Bush. Kevin baas 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The shadowbox link that was listed as the source of these is dead. Is there another source for these? Bonewah 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * also copperas.com (another source for the graphs) is just some guys web page. Not really reliable. Bonewah 05:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed the shadowbox link. It being "some guys web page" does not make it unreliable, rather, it throws its reliability into question.  A subtle but important difference.  That web page has links to the raw data from which the graphs were produced, which is the Department of Elections.  The voting machine distribution also comes from the D.O.E.  It was hand delivered at a congressional hearing.  The source is the Department of Elections.  copperas.com just put in excel and used the chart function to make a scatter plot of the data.   Anyone can do that.  And it'll look essentially the same regardless of who does it because it's the same data and the same function.  The only free variables are the colors and the scales and ranges of the axi.  And there's not much to argue about there; the effect is pretty pronounced.  The point is it's verifiable.  The source for the data is the D.O.E. Kevin Baastalk 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The source of the data is fine, but irrelevant. The process of selecting, applying functions and presentation of data are all non-trivial.  What is needed is a peer reviewed source, what we have is some guy who did some stuff with excel and put it on the web.  Bonewah (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The graphs are a WP:OR and WP:RS violation
While the data may be cited, the presentation of the data is this format is indeed the orginal work of the artist who made the graphs. If those graphs have not been previously piblished by a reliable source, then then are a WP:RS violation. Please see the entry for How to Lie with Statistics and read the book. The manner of rpesentation of information for controversial topics is fraught is questions of validity. This is why we seek sources notable, reliable sources for the items we post. I strongly object to the use of these graphs. 216.239.38.136 19:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The graphs were not made for this site, and therefore are not original research. I believe their sources are provided.  They played a significant role in the controversy (and still do). Kevin Baastalk 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You keep saying things like this, but unless you provide some sort of sources, your say-so really doesn't matter. Where did they play a significant role in the controversy? Who cited them? Phil Sandifer 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The name of the article is not accurate
Based on a review of the subject material current in the article, the name "2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression" is not accurate. I move that this article be renamed "2004 United States presidential election, Ohio allegations". I say this because almost all the information (and certainly the great bulk of the disputed graphs) is about Ohio and allegations pertaining to complaints from there. 216.239.38.136 19:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, there already is a page on irregularities in Ohio. Secondly, the use of the word "allegations" would be misleading, because there aren't very many allegations in the article.  It's mainly verifiable data. Kevin Baastalk 22:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

POV, This is an editorial
This entire article is simply Kevin Baas and a few other people's editorializing. The article is highly POV and probably doesn't belong in wikipedia at all. I agree with the early npov tagger who said to the effect this belongs on some partisan political site, not here.


 * Please review WP:NPOV. Kevin Baastalk 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article does violate NPOV.


 * If you haven't already, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. Kevin Baastalk 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the assertion that this article is excessively partisan, and am reinstating the tags - also, I am puzzled by the notion of "due process" as it applies to dispute tags - what policy is this based on? Phil Sandifer 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am refering to the wikipedia policy on using NPOV tags, ofcourse. It describes a process.  That process is "due".  Kevin Baastalk 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a link on the NPOV tag: Template:NPOV. Besides that, anyone can make blanket accusations on any article just as easily, and "defend" them just like they've been "defended" on this article.  Unfortunately, however, as I imagine has been well demonstrated, they don't lead to improvements in the article.  Frankly, if the critic can't point out any specific problems with the article, reason leads me to believe that it's the critic, not the article, that is biased.  So if you are puzzled, I suggest you look at the process described at Template:NPOV.  Kevin Baastalk 15:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Due Process" in this case appears to mean what Kevin Baas has decided. (Reinserting this comment that Kevin Baas deleted claiming it is 'uncivil'.  He may not like it or agree with it, but it is civil.) August 22, 2006


 * Let me be more specific - antagonistic and unproductive. Kevin Baastalk 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Or to be specific Kevin, that you were deleting what you don't like, do you do this often in talk pages? 29 August 2006


 * Could there please be some real samples of how the article is POV so the issue can be solved, this article has the oldest POV flag on it. If no real samples come forth then I suggest the flag should be removed within a month. --ojs 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, there were no real examples so I am removing the flag. --ojs (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Wash Post reference
I removed the following Washington Post reference as not relevant to vote suppression: We've done a post-election poll of 1,400 rural and exurban voters in Ohio counties that Bush won by an average of 17 percentage points. Their answers, and a closer look at other poll data, explode a few widely held theories about what happened...

...Third myth: A wave of newly registered Republican voters in fast-growing rural and exurban areas carried Bush to victory.

Reality: Among Ohio's rural and exurban voters, Bush beat Kerry by just five points among newly registered voters and by a mere two points among infrequent voters (those who did not vote in 2000).

Fourth myth: Republicans ran a superior, volunteer-driven mobilization effort.

Reality: When we asked new voters in rural and exurban areas who contacted them during this campaign, we learned that they were just as likely to hear from the Kerry campaign and its allies as from the Bush side. (In contrast, regular voters reported more contact from the GOP.)

The author, Steve Rosenthal, attempts to answer the question of "why we lost Ohio" on page 2 of the article. He doesn't even consider vote suppression, but instead concludes: The Bush campaign was able to persuade some voters who supported Gore in 2000 to turn to Bush in 2004 on the issues of terrorism, strength and leadership. Bush bested Kerry among those who voted in 2000 by five percentage points -- Bush bested Gore in 2000 by three points.

The other major factor was our side's failure to win the economic debate. Despite an economy that was not delivering for many working people in Ohio, the exit poll results show that voters in Ohio did not see Kerry providing a clear alternative. Just 45 percent expressed confidence that Kerry could handle the economy, compared with Bush's 49 percent.

The GOP put on a strong mobilization effort, but that's not what tipped the Ohio election. They did not turn Gore voters into Bush voters by offering a ride to the polls. Instead, it was skillful exploitation of public concern over terrorism by the Bush team -- coupled with Democrats' inability to draw clear, powerful contrasts on the economy and health care -- that pushed Bush over the finish line. (Id.)

I wouldn't have an objection to including a much shorter reference if it explained the relevance of this article, but given that the author (1) is a Dem supporter and (2) still concludes that the reason Kerry lost Ohio is demagoguery on terrorism rather than vote suppression makes the use of the quote misleading, IMHO.

Let me know your thoughts, TheronJ 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Was just reviewing it and I agree. A righteous deletion. This content is from a WaPo editorial, and isn't really notable on it's own. A Wikipedia text discussion of the varying POV's is one thing, but reprinting the bulk of this editorial seems overkill indeed for the NPOV and the appropriate level of information. Good on ya. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Kevin Baastalk 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not a "righteous deletion" as you say. It is information from a respected source, its simply not to the liking of the editorialists of this pov article.  August 27, 2006


 * I believe the reasons for the deletion were enumerated above. Kevin Baastalk 17:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon editorial and editorial complaint
Anon - are you Rex? Also, the section you have reverted back in (a lengthy quoted editorial) is unlike other references herein, as it is an opinion piece being quoted. Please discuss your rationale here for this suggested addition of yours - we need to resolve this issue especially since article probation is in effect on this article and counter-productive behavior is bannable. Repeated attempts to provoke revert warring could earn a ban.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With so far no response to requests for discussion, here is the section of text introduced and reverted back by the anon. I have moved it here in the interests of avoiding a revert war and analyzing the content collectively.


 * A Washington Post editorial by Steve Rosenthal, former political director of the AFL-CIO disagreed with many of the reasons given around vote suppression saying the evidence showed that the Democrats lost based on policy differences with the Republicans. "The reason Kerry lost the election had much more to do with the war in Iraq and terrorism than the political ground war in Ohio." 


 * We don't quote editorials elsewhere in this article, preferring voices of 'direct authority' (or so I gathered from my cursory review of the article's references) - so this section of text seems inapropos in its current form and placement within the article. Thoughts? Ideas for capturing this content/POV in a constructive way within the article? Discuss. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have introduced the content inline, in the 'Democratic Party' section. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nicely done, thanks TheronJ 12:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That single paragraph at the end of nearly the entire article seems to be the only balance. The rest is more screed of special interests groups and their claims. 148.63.236.141 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * anon needs to learn what special interest groups are, and how to differentiate them from concerned citizens.  And to read and understand the policy on balance. Kevin Baastalk 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting,...
...but unsurprising, that this article does not include the tire-slashing incident in Wisconsin, where Democratic activists, including a congress member's son, slashed tires of GOP get-out-the-vote vans. A2Kafir 18:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsurprising because that incident did not result in the suppression of any votes. And would it have, the number of votes suppressed would pale in comparison to any event listed in the article.  So yes, it is quite unsurprising that that is not in this article.  It is, however, in a somewhat more prominent place: the main article. (2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities)  However, I personally don't find the fact that it's not in this article all that interesting, given the reasons I just described. Kevin Baastalk 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove subsection intitled Absentee ballots and Diebold (Postal issues)
This section contains no real facts that are relevant here. The section asserts that fraud could have happened, not that it actually did. Additionally, the wording is a POV problem, in my opinion. Why is it relevant that the sorters were ex-felons? It looks like an attempt to bolster non-verifiable or non-factual opinions. 65.29.77.247 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok no one commented with objections so i removed it. 65.29.77.247 03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because it jeopardizes the reliability of the vote count. Which is why it shouldn't happen.  I'm not even sure it's legal.  Kevin Baastalk 16:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no claims that anything illegal happened here, just supposition that it could happen. The linked article says that the states have audit procedures to check the vote counts.  Nothing here but supposition. Bonewah (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove subsection Voter registration in Ohio
This section is just a press release for a lawsuit, why is it relevant? 65.29.77.247 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed 65.29.77.247 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Put back in. It's relevant because it's about vote suppression, which is the topic of this article. Kevin Baastalk 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply filing a lawsuit does not mean that ones claims have any merit, this lawsuit was dismissed, so why is it relevant? Bonewah (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit: Democratic Party v. Blackwell
I feel that the line "Joining him in the appeal as a citizen intervener was Thomas Noe who would become the key figure in Coingate." is irrelevant to the discussion of the blackwell lawsuit. Should i be just editing the material or is it appropriate to discuss first? Im relitivly new to this. 65.29.77.247 00:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done 65.29.77.247 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's relevant to the discussion of the blackwell lawsuit because he joined in the appeal; he played an integral role in the lawsuit. Kevin Baastalk 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

75.184.118.53 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So did a lot of people, so what? What role did he play that was so integral?  Also, what is the relevance of his involvement with coingate?


 * No, not very many people joined in the appeal. As far as I know, just him.  Joining in an appeal is a rather uncommon legal thing to do.  What role did he play that was so integral?  Well, the people usually only join in an appeal because the appeal would otherwise fail.  So that's a pretty integral role - keeping the appeal from failing.  I can't think of anything more integral.  The relevance of his involvement in coingate is his immorality; his criminal behavior, in the government sector.  That's the relevance. That should be obvious enough.  Kevin Baastalk 01:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * there is no evidence that the appeal would fail if he did not join. What role did he play that the other two joiners did not?  This and coingate are unconnected so none of the sections i removed were useful. Bonewah (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

HAVA sec 302 does not say that Provisional ballots should be counted if cast in the wrong jurisdiction removing Bonewah 03:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The linked article does not say that the democrats believed that the law in question violates federal law. Bonewah 04:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SEC. 302. PROVISIONAL VOTING AND VOTING INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS. (a) Provisional Voting Requirements.--If an individual declares that such individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote and that the individual is eligible to vote in an election for Federal office, but the name of the individual does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote, such individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot as  follows: (1) An election official at the polling place shall notify the individual that the individual may cast a provisional ballot in that election. (2) The individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot at that polling place upon the execution of a written affirmation by the individual before an election official at the polling place stating that the individual is-- (A) a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote; and (B) eligible to vote in that election. (3) An election official at the polling place shall transmit the ballot cast by the individual or the voter information contained in the written affirmation executed by the individual under paragraph (2) to an appropriate State or local election official for prompt verification under paragraph (4). (4) If the appropriate State or local election official to         whom the ballot or voter information is transmitted under paragraph (3) determines that the individual is eligible under State law to vote, the individual's provisional ballot shall be         counted as a vote in that election in accordance with State law. Kevin Baastalk 16:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please show me in this section where voters are allowed to vote in any precinct they chose? Also, the federal judge who heard this case ruled that HAVA does not allow for votes to be counted if cast in the wrong place. 75.184.118.53 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The following links go nowhere or are broken

 * 1) 2 http://dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2004/09/29/20040929-A1-01.html
 * 2) 4 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041018-093522-3974r
 * 3) 6 http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1098783094159330.xml
 * 4) 8 http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/nation/10032170.htm
 * 5) 13 http://vh10303.moc.gbahn.net/news/stories/20041102/localnews/1522938.html
 * 6) 15 http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10166750.htm
 * 7) 19 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PROVISIONAL_BALLOTS_OHIO?SITE=NYSTA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 * 8) 20 http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm
 * 9) 25 http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm
 * 10) 27 http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm
 * 11) 29 http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm
 * 12) 31 http://www.tampatribune.com/MGBOPBXS5WD.html
 * 13) 32 http://www.bradenton.com/9298887.htm

65.29.77.247 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can use the wayback machine to fix them. Kevin Baastalk 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the NAACP a reliable source for vote related information?
The section Misdirection of voters relies on this link http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200412\\POL20041208b.html as a citation. I dont believe the NAACP is really a reliable source for information on this subject. Comments? Bonewah 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? Do they have an agenda in this matter? Are they partisan? And even so, why should we not trust information from them? Just wondering since I don't know this organization. --ojs (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I reread the link and noticed that the NAACP actually sent their own election monitors. My original concern was along the lines of how would they know the information claimed, but if they had people on the ground then they would know.  As for the NAACP having an agenda, they do, but as far as I know, that shouldn't disqualify them as a source.  What do think about changing this section to read "According to NAACP election monitors, voters in some areas were told that their voting day was two days later on November 4, after the election. [8]"  Useful change or just pedantic?  Bonewah (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds useful. The NAACP doesn't really have an "agenda," beyond assuring political representation and activity among its constituent group, but saying the information was according to their election monitors, I think, would work. Apartcents (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting machine shortages section is largely unsourced
This section is also highly problematic, besides links to a database, the only external link is to the (dead) shadowbox. Some of seems supportable, but no links are there. Also, characterizing long lines as disenfranchisement seems a bit POV. Long lines are troublesome and may cause some to not vote, but may cause and did cause are two different things.
 * The Way Back Machine can help us here, they have the content of the page since June 30 2007. That could help in finding the sources for the statements here. --ojs (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think also that most of the statements here can be taken from conclusions drawn from data presented in the site http://voteprotect.org, specifically for Ohio it is this link, should we trust this data? It seems to me that they had their own call in phone system and voters called to them to report problems and the site just lists all theses calls. I don't know if the callers problems were confirmed in any way. --ojs (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is quite a bit of information in this section that could (and should) be sourced elsewhere, such as long lines and vote machine saturation, ill look for some better links on that stuff. As for shadowbox, i dont believe that it is a reliable source as its just some guy's website and the use of blogs and such is strongly discouraged.  As for voteprotect, im not so sure.  As you say, they may or may not have confirmed their data and, additionally, drawing conclusions from the data would be OR, regardless of reliability.  Consider this statement

In democratic counties in Ohio with at least three reported long line incidents, counties with higher voter turnouts have more long line incident reports per registered voter. Statewide voter turnout is 69.86%, whereas in said counties, which make up 34.34% of registered voters in Ohio, voter turnout averaged 66.01%, and elsewhere it averaged 71.87%, for a difference of 5.85%.


 * This strikes me as OR. What do you think?  Bonewah (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If the voteprotect site is a good resource then I don't think that statements like "Reports of broken or non-functional voting machines seem to be clustered tightly in minority neighborhoods in Cuyahoga County and Franklin County" are OR, it is quite plane to see from the site that this is the case and there is no interpretation (which I consider to be OR) involved there. But the mentioning of "minority neighborhoods" needs further backing up, for a layman who doesn't know the cities this took place in he has no chance of knowing if these incidents took place in the same neighborhood or how the demographics are in that neighborhood.
 * And the example of voter turnout I don't see as OR either, it is just taking available numbers and putting them up into words, some would perhaps disagree here but I don't see this as OR since there is no interpretation of the numbers, just stating the numbers from the original author a bit differently (and I don't think that is weaseling things either, might be wrong there though :-) ). --ojs (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Databases like this seem problematic generally, because they dont draw any conclusions themselves, just present data. So, where it says

1357 incidents of this type have been reported, 459 of which are from Ohio [17], and 191 of which are from Florida [18].
 * that is undoubtedly fine, IMO. But where the article starts performing math on the data, i think thats OR.  After all, the voteprotect site doesnt report percentages just raw numbers.  The minority neighborhood thing goes even further into OR because the voteprotect db doesnt record racial breakdowns at all and combining these numbers with demographics would be SYN, dont you think?  In any event, i believe this section is going to need more then just a db to back it up.  What are your thoughts on the reliability of shadowbox?  With it (i assume) we can just refrence shadowbox, without it or something like it, this is all OR, in my opinion.  As i said before, i believe it is a bad source, but im open to arguments to the contrary. Bonewah (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite agree with you that all math is OR, taking percentages out of data like that is not OR in my opinion but I don't think it matters much if the original data or a little calculation is done on the data before being presented so we can just print the original data. But I agree with you about the statement about minority neighborhood, that should be taken out or better sourced at least.
 * As for shadowbox then there are heaps of links in that article and there must be somewhere in there some material that can be used to make this article better sourced. If not, then we have to remove a lot of text. --ojs (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This link talks about voting machine shortages to some extent, in that the people responsible admit there were problems: http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2005/11/recounting_ohio-3.html Beyond shortages, however, the article doesnt support the text of this section.Bonewah (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This link talks about voting machine shortages and black precincts, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article502303.ece and their is an abstract talking in greater detail here http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/voting_project/2006/WalterMebaneEW.shtml so between the 2 a rewrite should be possible. Bonewah (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * take a look at my new edit and comment please. Bonewah (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Composition section has lots of speculation and possible source problem.
First, i feel this section contains mostly unsourced speculation such as This could be because Democrats were targeted and But most expectations were for him to make up several thousand votes, since the majority of provisional ballots might have been in certain Dem-heavy precincts in those counties Second, the only source here is dkosopedia.com and just contains a breakdown of provisional ballots. I dont think dkosopedia.com is reliable and even if it is, it doesnt support the text of this section. Id like to remove this whole section Bonewah (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh, I agree with you that this is a problematic section, but removing it totally is perhaps a bit to easy solution, lets try to find reliable sources for this section first (I agree that another wiki is not a reliable source since the source they cite is no longer there) and rephrase it so it is NPOV. --ojs (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
As descussed below, im going to revert to the last edit i made. The charts that were removed are from a suspicious source, are not peer reviewed and dont meet the standards of a wiki refrence. The claims about HAVA sec 302 are incorrect. Including a press release from a lawsuit that was dismissed is pointless. Bonewah (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed the text of the PFAW lawsuit to actually reflect what is in the link. Bonewah (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted without any comments? Bonewah (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding me. Just look at the edit.  Most people would simply call that "vandalism" without a second thought. In fact, it looks like two people before me already have! (granted, one was a bot.)  Kevin Baastalk 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * then your definition of vandalism and mine greatly differ. At least take the time to refute the arguments here, ive invited the other editor to do so as well.  Bonewah (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed tons of pertinent, sourced material -- something like half the page -- and you haven't made a single argument for doing so. Kevin Baastalk 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ive made many arguments here in the comment section, some of which you commented on, how is that "not a single argument"? Bonewah (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Try reading the full sentence: "...for doing so." (and you misquoted me, btw.) Kevin Baastalk 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall i move the other sections where you and I have both commented to here? I have no problem going edit by edit if you prefer, but dont try and claim that i have not made a good faith effort to avoid problems. Bonewah (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me right now that you are making a good faith effort. But I don't ever recall having any discussion about removing entire sections of important, well-sourced material, and I certainly think I'd remember a thing like that.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me for someone to think that people wouldn't have a problem with that, and I can't imagine how you'd expect to convince me (or anyone, for that matter) that that's a good idea. Kevin Baastalk 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok let me just recap the reasons i deleted the sections i deleted. The graphs are not from a trustworthy source, they are un-peer reviewed, and not from a source that has any sort of favorable reputation or some other kind of reputable source.  In short they do not meet the standard of a reference.  The line that claims that Blackwel's decree to disallow provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place was not in accordance with HAVA sec 302 was removed because HAVA sec 302 does not say that.  The section entitled voter registration in Ohio because it is just a press release for a lawsuit, a lawsuit that was dismissed.  At a minimum, discuss the lawsuit in the context of the other lawsuits and its final outcome, not just a copy of the pr wire. Bonewah (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has millions of images made by wikipedians for wikipedia, none, I repeat, NONE of them are "peer-reviewed" or from "trust-worthy" sources. And to top it off - because this is a graph - it is trivial to make - and if the same numbers are used - the ones directly from the DOE - it will look exactly the same regardless of who makes it.   My point is that one does not "peer-review" a graph, or say whether they are from a "trust-worthy source".  One does that with the data used to make the graph.  And in this case, that data is direct from the DOE! The graphs are open-source images.  They were made with microsoft excel, directly from that data.  In short, in addition to meeting the standard of a reference, they satisfy wikipedia policy.  Kevin Baastalk 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The line that claims that Blackwel's decree to disallow provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place was not in accordance with HAVA sec 302 was removed because HAVA sec 302 does not say that." Yes it does.  I pasted the text above, so that everyone can see that it does.


 * The section on voter registration has a lot of content besides the lawsuit. The content about the lawsuit is not a press release.  A lawsuit being dismissed does not make it insignificant.  At minimum, the lawsuit should be discussed in the context of what the lawsuit is about.  If the final outcome is not in there, then instead of removing everything else, try adding the final outcome.  Again, the text is obviously not a press release. Kevin Baastalk 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Who cares about from where the data comes? The problem here is the source of the graphs, not the data used to make the graphs.  I shouldnt have to spell this out, this is all covered by WP:SPS  "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable"  Straight from the policy page. Bonewah (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Who cares about from where the data comes?"?!?! Anyone who cares about accuracy, which apparently doesn't include you. Kevin Baastalk 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * nice cheap shot there. Let me make this simple, the charts are WP:SPS.  Please answer the relevant charge and save the sophistry. Bonewah (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to admit you set yourself up for that one. WP:SPS refers to sources i.e. books, newsletters, etc. But we're not talking about a source, we're talking about an image.  WP:SPS does not refer to self-published images.  We even have a copyright status tag for self-published images.  I believe the template is something like: "public domain - author".  We certainly wouldn't have such a tag if such images were in contravention of policy. Kevin Baastalk 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know WP:SPS is refers to sources. These are not pictures, these are data and the source of the data is an SPS problem. Again i ask you to address the problem here, this data comes from a self published source, which is a violation of wiki policy, why should'nt i just delete it on that basis?  Bonewah (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The data comes from the Ohio State government, namely, the Ohio Department of Elections. If that's not a reliable source for information about elections in Ohio, then what is?  Kevin Baastalk 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The data is not the issue, the analysis is. The mere fact that the data came from the Ohio DOE is unimportant.  Had the analysis been done by a political science department at a university, it would be different, but as it stands, the analysis was done by some guy on his web page.  WP:SPS.  Bonewah (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you're changing your argument again. you just said that the source of the data was the issue.  now you're saying that the source of the data is not the issue.  which one is it?  pick one and stick to it.  and don't contradict yourself.  i'm not going to get into one of those arguments because they go absolutely no-where.  when you lose an argument, concede that you lost it.  don't say that that wasn't your argument when it's right there in black and white.


 * Now you mention "analysis". What are you talking about?  Because I'm talking about a bunch of dots on a page.  A scatter-plot.  There is no analysis in a scatter plot.  it's like a number line.  you put a dot on the number line that corresponds with the number in the set.  no analysis.  it doesn't take rocket science, or a "political science department at a university" to place a dot on a number line.  a scatter plot is two orthogonal number lines.  there is no analysis.  there is only one place to put the dot.  if the numbers are 15,10, you put a dot at 15,10.  And if all the dots are clumped around the point 15,10, that's because all of the data points are clumped around 15,10.  it's a very straightforward representation of data.  of raw data.  calling it analysis is calling a list of raw numbers analysis.  and requiring that such a simple and trivial task be done by a "political science department at a university" is so arbitrary its ridiculous. Kevin Baastalk 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Now is as good of time as any to point out that you have not proved your assertion that these graphs were made from DOE sources. That is the whole point here, we cannot rely on shadowbox links because they have no reputation on which to rely.  If you actually believe that the process of picking data, picking what type of graph to use and plotting that graph are simple and trivial then we have a point of contention that Id just a soon put to arbitration, because I dont believe that.  In any event, it wont matter unless you can prove that the shadowbox people used real D.O.E data in the first place. Bonewah (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How to prove the assertion:
 * go to the DOE website
 * browse to the relevant page
 * copy and paste the table into excel
 * use the "insert chart" function, and follow the instructions in the wizard.
 * compare the result.
 * That's the beauty of open-source data. Kevin Baastalk 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've compared many of the raw numbers. I've compared entire charts (visually).  Hell, I even made some of the charts myself.  I've checked the data.  If you want to check it again, be my guest.  But don't accuse people of outright fraud if you can't prove it - if you're not even willing to take the effort to check for yourself. Kevin Baastalk 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is accusing anyone of fraud, outright or otherwise. Im just asking you to prove that the information you would like to have in the article is verifiable.  If you feel that what you put above constitutes proof, fine, lets ask for a third opinion on the whole matter.  Bonewah (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Kevin, let me put this to you one more time so we can be clear. If a reader sees one of these charts and says "how do i know this is correct?" he will click on the link to see proof.  If that reader goes to a dead website with no known author, then how is that proof?  Its a dead-end.  What shall we do, link here to your assurances that everything is fine?  Thats the point, information included should be verifiable. Bonewah (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me put this to you one more time so we can be clear: the information can be verified via the appropriate page on Ohio DOE's website. Kevin Baastalk 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And if there are any dead links, again, you can use the wayback machine to resolve them, and replace the dead link with the equivalent wayback machine link. Kevin Baastalk 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So that they go to a copy of a dead webpage with no know author? How does that constitute verifiability?  And we havent even begun to to discus the text which accompanies the graphs.  Convincing me that charts and graphs dont have to be from reliable sources is one thing (and you havent done that), convincing me to include text from an unreliable source is another.  Bonewah (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * if you continue to misrepresent my position, this conversation is never going to get anywhere. Kevin Baastalk 17:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I what way have i misrepresented your position? Bonewah (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There Kevin, ive fixed my typo (added the bolded from to my comment on 16:38, 17 April) Do you still think im misrepresenting your position? Bonewah (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Kevin, i am going to site WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" I am reverting on this basis. Bonewah (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * the citation for the text accompanying the graph is there. the sources provides access to the raw data and where it comes from. the burden has already been met. Kevin Baastalk 14:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WTF - you removed a bunch of entire sections again?!?! and lied in the edit summary!?!  are you for real? Kevin Baastalk 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? The rules here are clear, the burden of proof is on you.  Your say so does not constitute verifiability.  The citations for the texts points to a WP:SPS, a clear violation of the rules. And please explain how i lied in the edit summary. Bonewah (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * no, i',m not kidding you i've already satisfied the burden of proof but you refuse to acknowledge that.  re: edit summary: think about how a normal rational purpose woul describe the changes you made in that edit. Kevin Baastalk 14:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * YOu haven't satisfied any burden of proof. You havent even come close.  Come on, kevin, the U.S. presidential elections are not some obscure topic, if this information has any validity someone else would have done it.  This is just a blog kevin, this is why WP:SPS was written, your stammering to the contrary not withstanding.  Bonewah (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * HAVA sec 302 does not say that provisional ballots cast in the wrong place should be counted. The text you liked above clearly says the opposite of what you claim:

2) The individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional

ballot at that polling place upon the execution of a written

affirmation by the individual before an election official at the

polling place stating that the individual is--

(A) a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which

the individual desires to vote;


 * additionally, the federal judge who ruled on this case said that HAVA does not require ballots cast in the wrong place to be counted. In the US that is what determines law, what a judge says.
 * If you want to talk about the lawsuit, fine, ill add it back in in the section about lawsuits. But it will be my own words (or yours if you like) not just their PR line and it will cover the nature of the lawsuit and its outcome. Bonewah (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'm sure there's room for improvement in the wording and what it covers. Kevin Baastalk 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not the opposite of what i claimed. note that it says "a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote".  That may not be the jurisdiction that he is in.  Regardless, that is code describing a " written affirmation by the individual before an election official".  it is not a code describing whether or not a provisional vote is to be counted.  The part that describes that is part 4, which states:

(4) If the appropriate State or local election official to        whom the ballot or voter information is transmitted under paragraph (3) determines that the individual is eligible under State law to vote, the individual's provisional ballot shall be        counted as a vote in that election in accordance with State law."


 * Note the part where it says "...determines that the individual is eligible under State law to vote, the individual's provisional ballot shall be counted ".


 * HAVA 302 requires that all provisional ballots cast by individuals determined to be elgible to vote be counted. Some provisional ballots cast by individuals who are elgible to vote were cast in the wrong precinct.  The question is whether or not HAVA 302 requires that these ballots be counted.  Since these are provisional ballots cast by individuals determined to be elgible to vote, and HAVA 302 requires that all provisional ballots cast by individuals determined to be elgible to vote be counted, HAVA 302

requires that these votes be counted. I do not see how this can be made any more simple or any more plain. Kevin Baastalk 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote'". That may not be the jurisdiction that he is in."  What??'  Look, its simple, if an individual wants to vote then he has to be in the right place.  If he is in the wrong place, he cannot vote or cast a provisional ballot because he must affirm that he is in the right place on the provisional ballot.  The part you quote only applies to VALID provisional ballots cast.  In any event you have not answered the meat of the complaint once again. In the U.S., the law is what a judge says it is.  A federal judge ruled that HAVA sec 302 does not allow people to cast votes in the wrong place.  End of story.  Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.  Bonewah (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * RE: "The part you quote only applies to VALID provisional ballots cast". This is false.  You're obviously not a lawyer.  There is no definition of "valid" provisional ballots anywhere in the document.  And the word "valid" is not used in the part that I quote, nor is any synonym thereof.  The part I quote uses the word "trasmitted".  The part I quoted only applies to TRANSMITTED provisional ballots cast.  HAVA section 302, part a(4) requires that " If the appropriate State or local election official to whom the ballot or voter information is transmitted under paragraph (3) determines that the individual is eligible under State law to vote, the individual's provisional ballot shall be counted as a vote in that election in accordance with State law." and that, my friend is the end of the story.  The judge may have said something different.  That's fine, and what the judge said can be written i the article.  But judges only interpret laws, they do not write them, and the judge did not change what HAVA section 302, part a(4) explicitly states. Kevin Baastalk 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You personally can go on believing whatever stupid theories you like, but what the law says is not a matter of opinion. Judges may not write the law but what they say is what is legal and illegal.  As a side note (and not as a vehicle for you to keep arguing about this point) what you are doing is reading only the portions of law that seem to support your claim and ignoring the rest.  There is a reason that the federal judge threw out this case, it is a misinterpritation of the law.  To the best of my knowledge, no state in the US allows you to vote in the wrong place.  If you were correct, every precinct in the country would have had to change their laws and procedures that have been in place for decades or more.  In his decision that judge said that the federal government wouldnt have mandated such a sweeping change as you claim and bury it deep in HAVA.  They would have announced it and talked about it and passed a law specificly for that purpose.  you can go on believing your own sophistry if you like, but your a fool if you think you know the law better then a judge.  Bonewah (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me address this point for point. "You personally can go on believing whatever stupid theories you like."  - firstly, I sure hope not.  Secondly this can be construed as a personal attack, which is strictly against policy (WP:ATTACK).  "but what the law says is not a matter of opinion."  Nobody ever said that it was.  In fact, I am arguing that it is not.  for example, you opined that it said "valid".  i pointed out that it did not.  What the law says is a matter of reading comprehension.  It is sometimes difficult to do because people often have a natural tendency to inject their own concepts and prejudices into what they read without even realizing it.  For instance, injecting "valid" into the HAVA section 302, which, although it seems reasonable, was not actually in it.  A lawyer is trained to avoid this.  The LSAT - an exam that lawyers need to take in order to graduate - tests this ability.  The next most important thing in determining what the law says is logical reasoning.  The LSAT also tests this ability, both separately from reading comprehension and together with it.  It is similiar to good reading comprehension as described  earlier, in that it doesn't inject any opinion into the text, just as if one would read that "a+b=c", it would not be a matter of opinion to conclude that "a=c-b".  You see, laws cannot be written to account for every combination and permutation of scenarios.  So they are broken up into logical chunks that can be combined and recombined to produce a unique solution for almost any given scenario.  Point is that logic must be used to determine what the law says out of neccessity of how the law is written.  So in conclusion it is firstly reading comprehension and secondly logic that determines what the law states.


 * RE: "Judges may not write the law but what they say is what is legal and illegal." technically, what they say determines whether a specific instance of an act was legal or illegal.  There is what is called "judicial precedent" to enforce the uniqueness property mentioned in the above paragraph, and what is called "common law" to fill in the gaps.  But judges often disagree with each other, and can make mistakes, and those mistakes are often fixed.  Cases can be overturned and judical precedent isn't set in stone.


 * "what you are doing is reading only the portions of law that seem to support your claim and ignoring the rest." no, that is what you are doing.  I'm reading the part that states how to determine whether or not a provisional ballot is to be counted.


 * "there is a reason that the federal judge threw out this case, it is a misinterpritation of the law." - now that is pure speculation.


 * "To the best of my knowledge, no state in the US allows you to vote in the wrong place." - yes, same here.  but my knowledge, and i presume yours, only applies to regular ballots.  not provisional ballots.  i know that absentee ballots don't require you to vote in the "right place", because, by definition, you're "absent" from that place.  so not all ballots require you to vote in the right place.  I imagine the law for absentee ballots is worded similiar to HAVA sect. 302 - but this is just speculation.


 * "If you were correct, every precinct in the country would have had to change their laws and procedures that have been in place for decades or more." - nope. HAVA 302 was a recent federal law - so in that respect they already had "changed their laws".  and if the law mandated it, their procedures must follow, regardless of how they felt about it.  but it seems to me that they wouldn't have to change any procedures anyways, because we're talking about provisional ballots - not regular ballots.  For which, in most, if not all states, there was no prior procedure - or ballot.  That's one of the things that HAVA was specifically designed to address.


 * RE: "In his decision that judge said that the federal government wouldnt have mandated such a sweeping change as you claim and bury it deep in HAVA. They would have announced it and talked about it and passed a law specificly for that purpose."  - even disregarding the flaws in the premises that i pointed out in the above paragraph, that's still not sound legal reasoning.  that's what one might call "judical activism" or, more crudely, "b.s.".   the judge's job is not to speculate about the proceedings of congress, but to interpret the law as it is written.    But if that's what the judge wrote, then that's what the article should say he wrote, and people can form their own opinions about the relative propriety of his/her argument. Kevin Baastalk 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont know where you got your ideas about the way the law works, but i dont believe you are correct. Im ok with just putting what the judge said, here it is

At bottom, this is a case of statutory interpretation. Does the Help America Vote Act require that all states count votes (at least for most federal elections) cast by provisional ballot as legal votes, even if cast in a precinct in which the voter does not reside, so long as they are cast within a “jurisdiction” that may be as large as a city or county of millions of citizens? We hold that neither the statutory text or structure, the legislative history, nor the understanding, until now, of those concerned with voting procedures compels or even permits that conclusion. Thus, although we affirm many of the rulings of the district court and its proper orders requiring compliance with HAVA’s requirements for the casting of provisional ballots, we hold that ballots cast in a precinct where the voter does not reside and which would be invalid under state law for that reason are not required by HAVA to be considered legal votes.

To hold otherwise would interpret Congress’s reasonably clear procedural language to mean that political parties would now be authorized to marshal their supporters at the last minute from shopping centers, office buildings, or factories, and urge them to vote at whatever polling place happened to be handy, all in an effort to turn out every last vote regardless of state law and historical practice. We do not believe that Congress quietly worked such a revolution in America’s voting procedures, and we will not order it. this is from the decision linked in the main article Bonewah (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, i got my "ideas about the way the law works" from reading books about it. The judge sounds like more of a crackpot than i thought.  He says its a matter of statutary interpretation, then proceeds to do anything but that - proceeds to speculate a whacky scenario that boils down to nothing more than a hyped-up get-out-the-vote effort, and tries to make that sound scary.  He rules that such a procedure might actually make more people vote, and that that would be a horrible thing.  Congress would never intentionally do such a thing, so ofcourse they must not have done it.  It's a bunch of crazy-talk if you ask me.  Anyways, we can't very well include the whole blockquote because it's too long.  It needs to be accurately summarized, and maybe a part of it quoted. Kevin Baastalk 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph from the descision is fine for the article i think, the only reason i quoted the second was to refute your claim that judges dont speculate as to what congress wanted when they wrote the law (they do). As for your ideas about law, you should read better books or bounce your arguments off a friendly lawyer.  Anyone with a law degree will tell you that you cannot read a law out of context. Bonewah (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that you could read a law out of context. (Quite to the contrary, I believe i pointed out in an above pair of arguments that the judge was neglecting - refuting even - the context in which HAVA was written.)  I have no idea where you got that idea from, and I do not appreciate getting words put in my mouth.  I am not a straw man.


 * Furthermore, i never said that judges don't speculate as to what congress wanted when they wrote the law. In fact, we never even talked about that.  I said that a judge's job is to make rulings based on interpretation of the law, not to speculate on congressional proceedings - which, i might add, is quite different from speculating as to what congress wanted when they wrote the law. And I never said that no judge has ever done this.  In fact, I tacitly acknowledged, in good faith, that the judge in question had.


 * I would choose para two, as it's much more indicative of the judge's reasoning. I don't see how paragraph 1 indicates the judge's reasoning at all. Kevin Baastalk 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Paragraph one contains all the relevant details, the nature of the case, and the decision, i think that is the best paragraph to cite. Bonewah (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Paragraph one does not contain any detail, or the nature of the case. All it contains is the decision.  The relevant details and the nature of the case are, i believe, already addressed in the article.  The decision can be summed up in one simple sentence.  But i think the reader would also like to know the reasoning behind that decision.  And the only way to faithfully represent someone's reasoning is through their own words. Kevin Baastalk 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I never said that you could read a law out of context." I know, but that is what you were doing, trying to read subsection 4 of HAVA 302 out of the context of the rest HAVA 302.  Read all of HAVA sec 302 and not just subsection 4, the meaning is clear.  Bonewah (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. I was the one who oriiginally pasted that text, remember?  The meaning is clear to me.  You didn't even cite anything that has anything to do with whether or not the ballot is counted.  -the part you cited was about how the ballot is filled out.  Talk about context and reading the whole thing! Kevin Baastalk 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "-the part you cited was about how the ballot is filled out." Yes kevin, the part that says you have to affirm that you are in the right polling place when you fill out the ballot.  You keep reading subsection 4 as if it overrides that.  Whatever, we agree that the text should be changed to reflect what the judge said, you can believe anything you like, but i would ask you to consider to yourself which is the more likely, 1) a federal judge knows the law better then you and his rulings and reasoning are in accordance with the law or 2) that, having read some books, you know the law better then the judge and that he is mistaken in his thinking. Bonewah (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "You keep reading subsection 4 as if it overrides that." No I don't.  I read section 4 as stating what to do with a ballot that has been transmitted in the manner described in subsection 3.  If the ballot does not contain said written affirmation, then it is not transmitted in the manner described in subsection 3.  There is no contradiction.  Laws are written to be clear and unambigious to the reader, so that they cannot be abused or adulterated by sophistry, and so that their meaning cannot be manipulated or withheld from the citizenry.  I can read.  you can read.  And i'm no fool: I'll believe what someone says the law says when i can see and read it for myself.  The law clearly states that "If the appropriate State or local election official to whom the ballot or voter information is transmitted under paragraph (3) determines that the individual is eligible under State law to vote, the individual's provisional ballot shall be counted as a vote in that election in accordance with State law."  The judge may say something else, or that the law says something else, but that's what the judge says.  The law says "If the appropriate State or local election official to whom the ballot or voter information is transmitted under paragraph (3) determines that the individual is eligible under State law to vote, the individual's provisional ballot shall be counted as a vote in that election in accordance with State law." Kevin Baastalk 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Paragraph one does not contain any detail, or the nature of the case." Yes it does "At bottom, this is a case of statutory interpretation. Does the Help America Vote Act require that all states count votes (at least for most federal elections) cast by provisional ballot as legal votes, even if cast in a precinct in which the voter does not reside"  That is the essence of this case.  Bonewah (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any "detail". Perhaps we have different definitions of the word "detail".  and by "nature of the case" i read the situation and circumstances in which the case was brought up, if there was "irrepairable harm" claimed and what that claimed harm was, etc. Kevin Baastalk 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * then how would you describe the the details of this case? Bonewah (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what all the details of the case are. I don't think we need to go into too much detail in the article - that would be excessive. I think a brief summary would do.  But if you're asking me what my definition of "detail" is, i'll quote the dictionary:
 * "1: extended treatment of or attention to particular items" -- merrian-webster online Kevin Baastalk 14:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)