Groovy charts and graph for all
November 10, 2004 9:17 PM   Subscribe

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities The Wikipedia, on the 2004 election controversy - "After the U.S. presidential election on November 2, 2004, some sources have made allegations of significant data irregularities and systematic flaws..."
posted by troutfishing (13 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: trout dude, we get it, voter fraud is your issue. You're the goto guy for it. But a list of allegations on a heavily edited and re-edited wiki?



 
That's one hell of a revision history.
posted by smackfu at 9:38 PM on November 10, 2004


smackfu - Could you be more specific, and omit rhetoric ?

MSNBC Covers Voting Problems
posted by troutfishing at 9:41 PM on November 10, 2004


"You Lost, Get Over It."

it's been pwned!
posted by luckyclone at 9:43 PM on November 10, 2004


Keith Olbermann, for MSNBC, reports on Voting Irregularities

luckyclone - well, I guess you're just against American Democracy.

You wouldn't be a............
posted by troutfishing at 9:46 PM on November 10, 2004


I think smackfu is referring to is the revision history of the article itself. Looks like it's over 500 edits at this point; someone just edited it down to the word "bullroar."
posted by Jeff Howard at 9:51 PM on November 10, 2004


Yep, I was being all meta, since there's nothing much at the link that I haven't seen posted here already. So: That's one hell of a revision history. IMO, wikis are really bad for contentious issues like this, between the vandalism and the constant editing for alleged and actual bias.
posted by smackfu at 9:54 PM on November 10, 2004


David Corn in the Nation: A Stolen Election? "This may be the beginning of a case; it is not a case in itself."
posted by muckster at 9:57 PM on November 10, 2004


"there's nothing much at the link that I haven't seen posted here already." - smackfu , no I suppose there isn't : it's just an very nice collection of extremely damning evidence - probably unrivalled, in fact, and thus a nice exemplar of "the best of the web" on voting fraud in the 2004 election.

muckster - I'm wondering what standard of evidence David Corn would consider appropriate. I'd say that his balls have been in a tight vice squeeze for about ten years.

"I was tipped off by a person very high up in TV that the news has been locked down tight, and there will be no TV coverage of the real problems with voting on Nov. 2. Even the journalists are pretty horrified. My source said they've also been forbidden to talk about it even on their own time, and he was calling from somewhere else. He was trying to figure out how to get the real news out on vote fraud.
This is a person I've worked with off and on for nearly two years, and the voice was so somber it really bothered me....."
( Bev Harris, on HELP AMERICA AUDIT: 5 Things You Can Do Right Now to Reclaim Democracy
posted by troutfishing at 10:10 PM on November 10, 2004


Jeff: I count only 379 edits. Still a lot for such a young article though.
posted by fvw at 10:25 PM on November 10, 2004


It may all be true, troutfishing, but I really wish you would give it a rest.
One "the best of the web" on voting fraud a week is all I can take.
I care about this, too, but this is too much too often for me.
posted by y2karl at 10:36 PM on November 10, 2004


trout, Olbermann has already directly addressed Bev's quote saying he has encountered no such sentiment. Additionally I have now seen the story also covered on Fox and tonight on CNN. I think the "tiredness" of the media in the immediate post election period as well as the time it takes for hard data to gather, get out and get sorted through for the "lack" of coverage in the day or 3 right after the election.

Its also worth noting that other MSNBC staff has been covering the story online and has been putting a continual level headed face on the issues at hand (see David Shuster's post today supporting of the call to get the GAO looking into many of the issues).

[and on the wiki fights I saw some mention elsewhere today, maybe slashdot, on the battles over the content of both the GWBush & Kerry entries)
posted by 10sball at 10:42 PM on November 10, 2004


fvw, my count was based on exit polls... Acutally, I was misled by the navigation at the bottom of the revision page. The post navigation link goes to 500, which I took for an approximation of the total.
posted by Jeff Howard at 10:46 PM on November 10, 2004


it's just an very nice collection of extremely damning evidence - probably unrivalled, in fact, and thus a nice exemplar of "the best of the web" on voting fraud in the 2004 election.

I'm not sure that's how it's supposed to work. "The best of the web on voting fraud in the 2004 election" isn't the same as "the best of the web". I could post a link to the CNN front page and say it's "the best of the web" on the topic of the CNN front page, by your logic.
posted by Hildago at 10:54 PM on November 10, 2004


« Older Arafat is dead.   |   TimeCube for teh sexxor Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments