Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio

message: For a previous debate over the deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, Ohio.
Hmm ... lots of missing images and questionable sections ("Definite Miscount"?). This page needs some work.
As of 05:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: The thing is, is that sure, making claims about things which are onbviously opinionated are bad, but if there is evidence backing up a statement, or the fact that elections officals were convicted on charges relating to the 2004 election in Ohio, that information should stand. Just because you do not like what an article saays does not mean that it should be taken off the net.
Much of the information on this site is highly tenditious and open to dispute.  To call the shortage of voting machines in Cuyahoga County "voter suppression" leaps to conclusions about the intentions of the election officials in that place.  It will be months until the full facts are understood from the vote count in Ohio.  Until then, it is best that we proceed carefully in laying out the account on this page.
It is the direct result of a decision by government officials that the government officials knew were against standard election procedures. Kevin Baas | talk 16:23, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
::Shortages of voting machines were widespread and only in Democratic counties.  I've heard several testimonies of poll workers, etc who said there were less voting machines last month than in 2002 and/or 2000.  
::I don't agree that things should go slowly with this page.  This is a very serious matter which is being mostly ignored by the mainstream media and we need places like this to let people know what's going on.  Shiina 06:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize this is  a pretty old topic but I thought I would voice my opinion I agree because their are always going to be problems in precints and that that doesn't make it voter suppression, in fact considiring the difference between the two candidates one or two counties couldn't change the status of the election. I will probably remove what I consider  a POV in the future unless someone disagrees.
Falphin 22:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenditious article 

message: I wrote a huge comment regarding this article but have changed my mind. I instead only want to point out three things. First, Ohio print media seems to be concerned with possible election issues whereas the national and prominent Ohio television media do not seem to be. Second, bceause there are people who feel that the issue is of importance we as a referance material should have an article on it. Third, the article as is regardless of seeming to some to be dubious is terribly written as it stands now. We need to find someone that can write a neutral article on this issue and provide them with neutral outside sources they can referance. I don't mind keeping some of the referances here, but they seem like this article would be better off re-written. I'm thinking about writing a version of the article that'd strive to be neutral, but I want someone else to review it if I do. No_malrs (talk) 2 Dec 2004
----
I'd be happy to..  In any case, however, the case has to be made on 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities for the inclusion of a summary and a link to the article. Kevin Baas | talk 19:01, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
You may want to look at 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and sub-articles; they may be of use in your draft. Kevin Baas | talk 19:59, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
----
I have the news on right now. They just said that the (couldn't hear if NAACP or ACLU) was filing a lawsuit against the state election board claiming there was widespread fraud in the state and that some of it was performed by election officials. No_malrs | talk 2004 Dec 3
Anyone working on this article should read today's Plain Dealer article debunking most of these claims.  Rossami (talk) 19:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment from Ohio resident 

message: This article has a lot of content referring to activities pending or underway as of mid December 2004.  It does not appear to have been substantially updated since then and potentially could be inaccurate due to the march of events.  It also has the style of a contemporary event, and would benefit (though perhaps not for a few more months) from editing to go at the subject from a historic perspective. --Paul 21:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Here's a link: .  I'll also put it under "External Links" in the article. --zenohockey 22:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Need of Attention: Appears Out of Date

message: I have removed the link entry for Mercer County because no link from the Mercer County BoE exists to the county Republican Party - other than the one at the top to the general page.  In addition, the Mercer County BoE does not appear to have any links to election results.  Even if the link was still present I don't see how the BoE using data hosted from the county Republican Party is at all important.  The Board is equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, in which case, please explain. Rkevins82 - TALK 19:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercer County Section 

message: The section on Auglaize County is taken verbatim from the linking website.  After looking into the matter further, I can find no action on the allegation beyond the initial allegation. Rkevins82 - TALK 19:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auglaize County 

message: What is the state map there for?  Also, the accompanying paragraph.  I would like to try and clean this page a little and I would appreciate being able to discuss changes first if they seem controversial.  Rkevins82 23:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is to show the demographics.  It is interesting and important for the reader to know that the massive problems were concentrated in counties that were massively democratic - thus disproportionately affecting one segment of voters.  It is important to show not only the nature and extent of problems, but also their distribution. Kevin baas 19:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the map is not located close to the section that describes problems.  As a secondary point, this article has a large amount of graphics, leading me to wonder if we can reduce the load some? Rkevins82 21:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sections describe problems, so it should be on top.  A picture is worth a thousand words - you can't show distribution and the like with words.  The images generally give a lot of information, though I think they can be trimmed down.  I'll take a pass at it. Kevin baas 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied some relevant stuff over from the controversies, voter suppression article.  Actually ended up adding more images than i subtracted - but i don't see how images can be removed anymore without sacrificing too much important and unique information. Kevin baas 20:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map at top of page 

message: A number are worthless, as they do not link to articles.  In the voting machine paragraph we are given links which just take you to the main page.  Is any of this verifiable? Rkevins82 22:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting machine paragraph... could you be more specific or copy it here?  Anycase, as far as i know everything in the article is verifiable. Maybe some links moved, I don't know. Kevin baas 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  voteprotect links 

message: ...does not provide explanations for why there could be long lines in the most populous county of the state, including: reporting bias (election observers were clustered in Democratic areas, such as parts of Cuyahoga, Summit, Mahoning, Franklin, and Hamilton counties), voters not understanding equipment, less well-distributed voting times, and voter error (many voters that have problems at the polls have gone to the wrong polling location).  Little in this article is written in context.  There is a line "Cuyahoga County has an inverse relationship between voter turnout and support for Kerry. This means that, where support for Kerry was high, the voters didn't turnout, for whatever reason. This could possibly be explained by vote suppression, (such as significant machine shortages in black neighborhoods) but more analysis is necessary."  That's the way things usually are, if I am reading it correctly.  Precincts that have more Republicans have a higher turnout, because Republicans vote and Democrats tend not to, in proportion.  The graph is also garbage for that reason. Rkevins82 23:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Election observers where put all over the place, not just in democratic areas.  And the graphs and figures are not correlated with the distribution of election observers.  Machine distribution, voter complaints to EIRS, voter turnout, etc, are things that are not afffected by the distribution of observers.  The equipment is pretty simple to understand, so that's a long shot.  And the poll workers are supposed to be trained to assist if neccessary.  Failing both of these things, the law sets a standard and a maximum limit of voters per machine (i.e. machines per 100 voters) specifically so that each voter will have enough time to vote, even if they find the machines confusing and all.  Thus, if lines were long because the voters found the machines confusion, then in any case that implies that the law was not followed.  On the topic of voter error - the overwhelming majority of voters at the wrong polls went to the polls they went to because that's were they were told to go - and that is not their error; they did everything correctly, that is the error of the people misleading them on where to vote - which is a form of vote suppression.  In any case, they were told they could vote provisionally, and according to HAVA (the law), their vote would be counted even if they were in the wrong polling place (providing that that was the only polling place they voted in) - however, Kenneth Blackwell ordered these votes thrown out, another form of vote suppression.  regarding that's the way things usually are - no that is not the way they usually are, and if it is, then that being the case makes it even more wrong.  Killing two people is worse than killing one person, and it is not any less wrong the second time you do it.  Yyour statement "Precincts that have more Republicans have a higher turnout, because Republicans vote and Democrats tend not to, in proportion." is wrong.   And in fact, in hot elections like 2004 was, democratic voters tend to do much better in turnout than republican voters. (2004 being the only exception in the data available from the ohio department of elections.)  The only thing that can make a graph garbage is the raw data it being a graph of being inaccurate, and you never mentioned anything about the accuracy of the raw data for the graph.   Kevin baas 04:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If instead of statistical conjecture you take a look at the actual election records from the Ohio Department of Elections, you'll see that the actual voting patterns do not support your conjecture. Kevin baas 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Howevery, if you some research you may find some statistical anomalies in the ohio canvass reports that put the accuracy of the official certified vote counts into question - but correcting for all of the anomolies (regardless of which party they favor) would serve to make the graphs more eccentric rather than less. Kevin baas 04:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuyahoga County 

message: No substantive discussion has occurred in the past month or so. Can we request unprotection now? Calwatch 06:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. I'm unprotecting this article now. --Tony Sidaway 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End protection?

message: i cut out parts of the newspaper article that i thought were material and i put them in an order that seemed most reasonable: Kevin Baastalk 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In August, 2006, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell agreed to issue an order postponing for several months the date on which local election officials may destroy ballots from the 2004 election.  Blackwell did so at the request of various investigators, who report that they have found significant discrepancies in Ohio voting records and wish to keep investigating.
After the investigations are complete, we'll know more.  Thanks, TheronJ 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The investigation will most likely take over a year.  I don't see why we have to wait that long to put up what we know now. Kevin Baastalk 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: working on new section, titled:Official tallies not matching official records in Ohio

message: Kevin, I don't have anything against your draft, but if it were up to me, I would start with something a lot shorter, like:
: In August, 2006, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell agreed to issue an order postponing for several months the date on which local election officials may destroy ballots from the 2004 election.  Blackwell did so at the request of various investigators, who report that they have found significant discrepancies in Ohio voting records and wish to keep investigating.
After the investigations are complete, we'll know more.  Thanks, TheronJ 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The investigation will most likely take over a year.  I don't see why we have to wait that long to put up what we know now. Kevin Baastalk 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TheronJ suggestion

message: In an Aug. 23 letter to Blackwell, voting-rights attorney Cliff Arnebeck asked Blackwell to preserve the ballots in connection with the legal action. He said the individuals and public interest groups he represents have found irregularities and anomalies among the ballots they have reviewed so far, and they want to keep digging.
Federal law says the secretary of state's office is required to keep ballots for 22 months following a federal election.
Arnebeck's sweeping lawsuit accuses Blackwell of violating state and federal laws and the U.S. Constitution by "inequitably distributing voting resources, suppressing votes, and spoiling ballots" in 2004, the letter said.   Kevin Baastalk 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last year, Arnebeck dropped a similar challenge to Ohio's 2004 election results after Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Moyer called the evidence "woefully inadequate." 
TheronJ 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of legal accuracy Moyer said that before the point in the litigation process were evidence was supposed to be presented. Kevin Baastalk 15:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, technically Moyer said that Arnebeck's allegations were so woefully inadequate as to bar him from even obtaining evidence, but if you want to get into "truth, not verifiability," we're in for a long road. I suppose if you want to call the whole Forbes article an unreliable source on that basis, that might work.  TheronJ 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arneback alleged that the electoral votes should go to Kerry.  That's an adequate allegation for a legal contest of the electoral votes.  Moyer was refering to evidence.  His statement was simply misleading.  I wouldn't call Forbes an unreliable source for reliably reporting a misleading statement, rather, I'd call Moyer a misleading source, and the journalist for that article an inadequate researcher.  I'd also say the journalist put in a misleading statement.  yes, arneback dropped the suit, chronologicaly speaking, sometime after the judge made a public statement about a case he was presiding over.  however, the two events are unrelated.  justice moyer accepted the "inadequate" suit.  the case was dropped because it was made moot by the certification of the electoral votes on jan. 6.  Kevin Baastalk 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read the legal papers, Kevin, and that statement just isn't true.  If you're interested, why don't we take it to a sub-page or Moyer v. Moss.  TheronJ 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Contestors asked the court to dismiss the suit because the certificaion of the ohio electoral votes had rendered it moot, and justice Moyer accepted the request.  I paid close attention, and I remember it very clearly.  Kevin Baastalk 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You remember Arnebeck saying that, I suspect, or someone quoting Arnebeck.  TheronJ 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes.  He's the one who requested that the case be dismissed.  I would imagine that he knows why he made the request more than anyone else does. Kevin Baastalk 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forbes excerpt

message: :I removed the following because, though interesting, it seems to be original research: Kevin Baastalk 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is the diff of the edits that put the content in:  Kevin Baastalk 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cross-voting: OR? 

message: This article needs major cleanup before it is suitable for a merge. In particular, I've removed several copyvios that were nothing but excerpts from their cites. Also, the page has too many full-size images. They all need to be thumbnailed and some of them need to be removed outright. The news section needs to be written into an actual narrative, instead of headlines and links, and tenses of a lot of items need to be changed (i.e. "Kerry has requested ...") along with items that discuss past events as in the future. Unfortunately, the article remains POV. theProject 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not been decided to merge this article.  To the contrary, the current consensus is otherwise. Kevin Baastalk 20:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I get an indication of that consensus somewhere? I just started tackling the backlog on :Category:Articles to be merged, and I didn't see any merge disputed tag anywhere. Assistance would be greatly appreciated. theProject 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kevin Baastalk 23:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preparation for merge 

message: EIRS is not a reliable source of statistical data relating to voting machines. Many problems are recorded as "Machine problem" without any relation to voting machines:
*050281 "Turning voters away without offering provisional ballot"
*050600 "not all the ballot areas are being used"
*050703 "workers to old. inspectors are rude"
*051399 "She reported another woman being upset who felt she may have voted wrong- also mentioned young woman poll worker didn't seem to know what to do."
*033979 ""State inspectors" are taking names of people at the door. Then they go inside and have to be checked off another 2 times. Really slowing down the lines."
These are just a few and only from Cuyahoga County. The data contains numerous duplications, second hand reports, news reports... I tried to qualify some of the claims to make them more accurate.
*"Precincts in some counties reported receiving less than half of the voting machines requested." is unsourced.
*Cuyahoga County used punch cards in 2004
*Breakout long lines from voting machines.
*updated dead link via wayback
*remove dead image
*links -> refs
--Electiontechnology 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite a court orderhttp://www.ediscoverylaw.com/2006/09/articles/case-summaries/court-orders-preservation-of-ohios-2004-presidential-election-ballots-on-paper-or-in-any-other-format-including-electronic-data/ to save the ballots it seems 56 of the 88 counties have accidentally lost, shredded or otherwise disposed of them http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-violation-of-federal-law-ohios-2004.html. This means it is now impossible for a court to decide one way or the other if there actually was fraud. This needs to be included. Wayne 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EIRS & Updates

message: As I write this, there is a flag announcing that the article is under arbitration. One concern I have is the misuse of statistics, intentional or otherwise. This example comes from the section on Franklin County:
:Voting machines in Franklin County were well over capacity, averaging 184 recorded votes per machine. The amount the machines in a precinct were over capacity (measured by "active", not registered voters) was directly proportional to the percentage of voters in that precinct voting Kerry. As the graph below shows, this led to suppressed turnout in Democratic precincts.
In fact, the first referred graph shows a positive correlation, but not direct proportionality. As for the second graph, it may suggest turnout suppression, but that is an over-reaching cause/effect conclusion. It assumes, among other things, that precincts with lower turnout had nothing in common other than candidate preference.--Geometricks 08:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of Statistics 

message: The tag has been there a year, can someone familiar with this give an update?--BirgitteSB 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the current POV concerns?