Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 1

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

message: Title changed to "2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities" FT2 17:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
:This title doesn't work:
:# It doesn't follow Wikipedia style for article titles ("Election" shouldn't be capitalized).
:# It's POV to imply that there were irregularities.  By contrast, "controversies", "disputes", "allegations" and "charges" are examples of words that are acceptable because they make clear the contested status of the issues addressed.
:# Although this one's harder to deal with, I'd like to see a title that's more precise as to the nature of the controversies or whatever they're called.  For example, one controversy in the election was whether to repeal Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000, but that's not what's meant here.
: How about: "2004 U.S. election voting controversies"? JamesMLane 04:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe "irregularities" is appropriate from a statistical analysis perspective.  The title is not saying these irregularities are definitely from fraud, it's simply pointing to apparent factual irregularities in the data, people are free to disagree by offering other view points that might explain them away.  Also, check the talk history, we discussed this title for more than a little while.  Zen Master 04:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that the word "irregularities" is defensible from a statistician's perspective, but most people aren't statisticians.  Most people (or at least many people) would take "irregularities" as indicating some impropriety, whether from fraud or from innocently malfunctioning machines.  The title has been under discussion for only three days; I did read this entire Talk page before commenting, but few things on Wikipedia can ever be regarded as set in stone, and certainly not after three days. JamesMLane 05:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Irregularities just means there's data that needs an explanation, either there was fraud or we/someone will gain knowledge of improved exit polling techniques or any number of other explanations.  I think most people would say there was little about this election that was regular.  Exit polling is a good check and balance against fraud, it should not be discounted (e.g. so it can be used and relied upon the next time).  Does wikipedia operate on the basis of a concrete definition of a word or upon perception?  Maybe we could define irregularity at the top of the article to allay your concerns?  Perhaps the exit poll article needs more details with actual mathematical techniques included and this article could link to that as well? "Exit polling" would be more appropriate. Zen Master 05:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to put the focus on arguably anomalous data that need an explanation, how about "2004 U.S. election voting questions"? JamesMLane 05:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted for just "controversies" originally, so others will have to do any further defending of "irregularities".  Though what is more anomalous and irregular than exit polling data in every swing state disagreeing with the results to bush's benefit in each case?  The odds of that happening by chance are pretty low apparently.  We could add "data" before "irregularities" but that sounds worse as a title perhaps.  The diebold information is more than a question, it's a controversy so we can't remove that. Zen Master 05:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Change

message: Does anyone know a way to get a map showing the differences between (exit poll figures) and (official votes cast)? The question's sparked by the maps added by User:Kevin baas, what I'm looking for (and haven't seen yet) is a similar map. Anyone got any ideas? I believe theres already a link on the page sourcing some exit poll and final vote figures for different states, but I dont know if its sufficient.  
It would be helpful to show comparative maps of the difference between voting according to exit polls, and voting according to machine, and compare that to a map picking out swing and nonswing (or republican and democrat) states. FT2 18:12, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
:I think this would be wonderfull!  It would also be nice if this could be broken down by county in states with anomalous discrepencies (>=4%), if at all possible. Kevin Baas | talk 21:32, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that there was a correlation between accuracy of initial exit polls and whether or not the county used electronic voting (or maybe a specific type of electronic voting)... anyone know anything about this or just wishful thinking? --kizzle 21:37, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
The complaints and insinuations about exit polling are unfounded.   216.153.214.94 22:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for information