Talk:2004 Ohio Irregularities
From dKosopedia
(Return to 2004 Ohio Irregularities)
I like the way that the main page discusses known facts, with sources. I personally feel that the discussion page could be used for discussing leads. Right now, there are dozens of diaries where people are posting new info on new counties. Much of this info is not-yet-ready-for-prime-time.
In general I think the page should be for conclusions - if there are a lot of supporting evidence, link it either to its diary, or to another new wiki page.
Also, there isn't much need for all the sigs, since that info will be retained in the page history anyway.
If you find interesting data about Ohio buried in the dailykos comments, definitely include pointers and summaries in the wiki. (Like dKosCommentSearch:2004Irregularities?
I don't think that this discussion page should be a place for opinions and theories, per se, but incomplete data. For example:
Cleveland ward 6:
- Abnormally low turnout, especially at MLK Library (6B,6C,6E) (retracted)
- Turnout decrease from 2000
- Conflicting witness reports
- Voteprotect call citing multiple sign-in books
If people like this idea, I'll go ahead and put links in. I'm hoping this will prevent duplicating research...
Question: Any idea how Ohio deals with other punchcard issues, i.e. Overvotes (punching in Kerry + writing his name in) or mispelling a candidate's name? IIRC, Florida just tossed anything outside of the strict legal vote. That was going to be changed if the USSC had allowed the vote to continue.
I set up "Turnout %" and "Kerry %" columns when I did the Lucas county spreadsheet; there was a moderate inverse correlation, but nothing like the Cuyahoga County results. For one thing, no Lucas Co precincts had such disastrously low turnouts (39% was the lowest), and Kerry's +90% precincts were all pretty average in turnout. However, Kerry's really LOW precincts were all high-turnout, +80%. Didn't think this belonged on the "facts" page...:Rincewind 23:01, 13 Nov 2004 (PST)
Organization
I think it would be helpful for any dkosopedia article to have introductory paragraphs before the table of contents explaining the general purpose of the article for relative newcomers. Think of reading this a week from now, it should make sense then. Explain something like
The official results said blah, However, soon after the results were announced there were widespread reports of irregularities in various aspects of the voting process including (give bullets) supported by (give sources Bev Harris etc).
I would help out with this, but right now I'm somewhat lost in what's currently going on with this particular project.CSTAR 14:13, 21 Nov 2004 (PST)
I'd like to see a parent page for 2004 Voting Irregularities. Then the 2004 Ohio Irregularities and 2004 Florida Irregularities could be child pages, and we could add pages for additional states as well. We could also add general national info at the parent level as well. Currently, there's nowhere to put this. I just noticed that I probably added such info to the wrong page -- the 2004 Election Registration Fraud page. --AlanF DKP 11:11, 23 Nov 2004 (PST)
How about merging in Georgia10's current fantastic diary. Clyde 23:49, 2 Jan 2005 (PST)
Nice page for "one stop shopping" for someone like me who's just beginning to dig into the vote fraud stuff. It would, however, be a good idea to bring this up to date. For example, as I write in May 2005, "Chances of Winning" seems of questionable utility. ("Slim and none, and Slim left several months ago"?) However, I think there's a lot of value here; it just needs to be rewritten from a more historical perspective.
--EqualOpportunityCynic 16:22, 17 May 2005 (PDT)
