PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID

Steve:

The point is perhaps clarified below in three embedded responses. Please
note that rudeness is being ignored for the purpose of enhancing
comprehension:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Steve:

Read the reports.

For what purpose?

**** SNIP ****



The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral votes
are cast.


Kind of.

1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
votes should be cast by the electors.
2) Exactly how these votes are counted- and whether or not an attempt is
made to count all of the votes, and if so how this attempt is made- varies
somewhat state by state.
3) Once the individual state has counted enough ballots to determine how to
proceed electorally, the unused/unecessary votes are generally not counted.
4) The electors from that state are then charged to vote a certain way
(generally).
5) The electors vote; according to the laws of their state.
6) When it's all over, various media types sum the ballots counted in each
state (with, on the average, a 5% undercount deemed "Acceptable") to arrive
at what is then reported as the "nationwide popular vote."

Note that in none of this process is there actually an attempt made to
determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide popular vote"
(let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.

O.K.- subtlety aside- note that in none of this process is there actually an
attempt made to determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide
popular vote" (let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.




We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but nothing
approaching any type of recognized official count.

Surprised?


No. Should I be?



Check it out.


Check what out?



Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have provided
the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read them,
and then let's go at it chapter and verse.


What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?


Apparently that is not the problem at this time.






The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet all
of a sudden . . .


Took you up on what?

The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote' or
'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the comprehension
of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers as representing
the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing does not exist in
reality.

Steve Swartz

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...

The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral
votes are cast.


Kind of.

1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
votes should be cast by the electors.


Yeah. I just said that.



What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?


Apparently that is not the problem at this time.


Then what is the problem?



Took you up on what?


The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote'
or 'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the
comprehension of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers
as representing the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing
does not exist in reality.


Yeah, but I'm not one of them.

Steve -

I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on counting
votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the effectiveness
of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I will not
post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed expert
and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
forgone conclusions.

Jack G.


"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Steve:

The point is perhaps clarified below in three embedded responses.
Please
note that rudeness is being ignored for the purpose of enhancing
comprehension:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Steve:

Read the reports.

For what purpose?

**** SNIP ****



The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral
votes
are cast.


Kind of.

1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
votes should be cast by the electors.
2) Exactly how these votes are counted- and whether or not an attempt is
made to count all of the votes, and if so how this attempt is made- varies
somewhat state by state.
3) Once the individual state has counted enough ballots to determine how
to
proceed electorally, the unused/unecessary votes are generally not
counted.
4) The electors from that state are then charged to vote a certain way
(generally).
5) The electors vote; according to the laws of their state.
6) When it's all over, various media types sum the ballots counted in
each
state (with, on the average, a 5% undercount deemed "Acceptable") to
arrive
at what is then reported as the "nationwide popular vote."

Note that in none of this process is there actually an attempt made to
determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide popular vote"
(let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.

O.K.- subtlety aside- note that in none of this process is there actually
an
attempt made to determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide
popular vote" (let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.




We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but nothing
approaching any type of recognized official count.

Surprised?


No. Should I be?



Check it out.


Check what out?



Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have provided
the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read them,
and then let's go at it chapter and verse.


What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?


Apparently that is not the problem at this time.






The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet
all
of a sudden . . .


Took you up on what?

The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote'
or
'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the
comprehension
of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers as
representing
the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing does not exist in
reality.

Steve Swartz

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:gWK2d.66$C8.9@trnddc05...

Steve -

I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on counting
votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the effectiveness
of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I will
not
post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed expert
and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
forgone conclusions.


My position? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Sorry about the confusion - Steve Swartz is the one who's position I
disagree with...

Jack G.
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:gWK2d.66$C8.9@trnddc05...

Steve -

I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on
counting
votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the
effectiveness
of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I will
not
post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed
expert
and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
forgone conclusions.


My position? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I used to whisper to my wife (you have to whisper about such things
when you live in a university town): "How come Reagan keeps getting
elected if we're the only people voting for him?"

Come on, Dan, you need to put a couple of smileys after that. I live
in a university town too, as you can tell from my email address, and
most of my friends are conservatives.

vince norris

Ahh, the ever popular misleading snippage + ignoring the points made by the
other party!

So-o-o-o-o-o 1980s of you.

Steve Swartz



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...

The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral
votes are cast.


Kind of.

1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
votes should be cast by the electors.


Yeah. I just said that.



What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?


Apparently that is not the problem at this time.


Then what is the problem?



Took you up on what?


The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote'
or 'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the
comprehension of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers
as representing the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing
does not exist in reality.


Yeah, but I'm not one of them.

Roy G. Saltman. Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote
Tallying. National Bureau of Standards, NBS Special Publication 500-158:
1988.
http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm

Voting Systems Performance and Test Standards. Federal Election Commission
Final Report, 30 April 2002.
http://www.fec.goc/pages/vssfinal/vss.html

Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability
of Existing Voting Equipment. The CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project
Report, version 2, 30 March 2001.

Bullock, Charles S. IIId and M.V. Hood. One Person- No Vote; One Vote; Two
Votes: Voting Methods, Ballot Types, and Undervote Frequency in the 2000
Presidential Election. Social Science Quarterly, v 83 n 4: December 2002.

Wright, Gerald C. Errors in measuring Vote Choice in the Natioanl Election
Studies, 1952-88. American Journal of Political Science, v 37 n 1, February
1993.

Start with those publications; probably in order. For the second one (the
FEC standards) the applicable sections are the Overview and then Volume II,
Appendix C Qualification Test Design Criteria.

Any open-minded, rational person would be forced to admit the conclusions
that:

1) There are margins of error in our vote counting, including counting
votes for presidential elections;
2) This creates uncertainty around the "true" vote count for either (all)
party(ies);
2) The difference in vote counts between Bush and Gore in the 2000
elections was well within that margin of error;
4) We don't know- and can't know- what the actual vote counts were; HOWEVER
5) We do know that the uncertainty surrounding the recorded vote tallies
makes it impossible to determine who actually recieved the most votes with
any reasonable degree of certainty.

In short, the (totally irrelevant) "Popular Vote" (which isn't even counted)
is- at best- a statistical tie.

Claiming "Al Gore Received More Votes Than Bush" is a lie.

Steve Swartz

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:gWK2d.66$C8.9@trnddc05...
Steve -

I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on counting
votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the effectiveness
of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I will
not
post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed expert
and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
forgone conclusions.

Jack G.


"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Steve:

The point is perhaps clarified below in three embedded responses.
Please
note that rudeness is being ignored for the purpose of enhancing
comprehension:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Steve:

Read the reports.

For what purpose?

**** SNIP ****



The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral
votes
are cast.


Kind of.

1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
votes should be cast by the electors.
2) Exactly how these votes are counted- and whether or not an attempt is
made to count all of the votes, and if so how this attempt is made-
varies
somewhat state by state.
3) Once the individual state has counted enough ballots to determine how
to
proceed electorally, the unused/unecessary votes are generally not
counted.
4) The electors from that state are then charged to vote a certain way
(generally).
5) The electors vote; according to the laws of their state.
6) When it's all over, various media types sum the ballots counted in
each
state (with, on the average, a 5% undercount deemed "Acceptable") to
arrive
at what is then reported as the "nationwide popular vote."

Note that in none of this process is there actually an attempt made to
determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide popular vote"
(let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.

O.K.- subtlety aside- note that in none of this process is there actually
an
attempt made to determine, with any type of accuracy, what the
"nationwide
popular vote" (let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.




We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but
nothing
approaching any type of recognized official count.

Surprised?


No. Should I be?



Check it out.


Check what out?



Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have
provided
the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read
them,
and then let's go at it chapter and verse.


What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?


Apparently that is not the problem at this time.






The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet
all
of a sudden . . .


Took you up on what?

The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote'
or
'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the
comprehension
of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers as
representing
the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing does not exist in
reality.

Steve Swartz

You can also choose to disagree with the "position" that 2+2=4; or that pi ~
3.14159; that's your "personal choice" I guess . . . just be aware of and
accept exactly what it is you are choosing.

Steve Swartz



"Jack G" wrote in message
news:d9L2d.67$C8.47@trnddc05...
Sorry about the confusion - Steve Swartz is the one who's position I
disagree with...

Jack G.
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:gWK2d.66$C8.9@trnddc05...

Steve -

I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on
counting
votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the
effectiveness
of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I
will
not
post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed
expert
and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
forgone conclusions.


My position? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...

Ahh, the ever popular misleading snippage + ignoring the points made by the
other party!

So-o-o-o-o-o 1980s of you.

Steve Swartz


You're not making any sense. What have I written here that you believe is
incorrect?