Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Recounts

Ive edited another article on 2004 United States presidential election recounts and legal challenges and i feel that we can merge the information here. This one wasent on the Afd but its related. I'll add the section about Ralph Nader as i think its better then what is currently here. Bonewah (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Racial discrimination and other bias

diff Do you really think all this belongs in a section about racial discrimination? Bonewah (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why it says "and other bias". One common argument is that no election is perfect and a collection of incidents is meaningless. Indeed, I think that argument's been on this very page. One counter to that argument is that, if the irregularities were just happenstance, there'd be no discernible pattern to them -- but there is.

Race is an obvious example. The high loyalty of black voters to the Democratic Party, coupled with the ready availability of census data and eyewitness evidence as to race, means that certain districts and groups of voters that are pro-Democratic are very easy to track. If the problems disproportionately affected the African-American community, then they disproportionately affected Democrats.

Kennedy makes a similar observation about a pattern in the irregularities. If it were just ordinary screwups, you'd expect them to favor one side or the other at random. Kennedy determined that they overwhelmingly favored Bush, and he drew the conclusion that they weren't random.

That's why the general observation was in this section originally. I'm not wedded to keeping the Kennedy quotation in this section but it's a very important argument that should be reported somewhere. JamesMLane t c 03:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "NYTSpur" :
  • [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul], [[The New York Times]]
  • . In many places, some voters had to wait several hours to vote. Among the factors thought to be at work were: the general increase in voter turnout; a particular increase in first-time voters whose processing required more time; and confusion about the providing of provisional ballots, which many states had never used before. In addition, some of the instances may have been caused, in whole or in part, by a form of voter suppression. Many previous elections have seen charges that a governing party allocated more voting machines or otherwise facilitated voting in areas where it was strong, while doing the opposite in the opposing party’s bastions. That issue arose again in 2004. There were also allegations of delays caused by such tactics as frequent challenges of voters, or even police roadblocks set up to impede access to certain polling places. ===Voting machines=== {{further|[[Electronic voting#Analysis of electronic voting|Analysis of electronic voting]]}} Before 2004, the increasing use of electronic voting machines had raised several issues: * '''Software.''' Without proper testing and certification, critics believe [[electronic voting]] machines could produce an incorrect report due to malfunction or deliberate manipulation.<ref>[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html Bruce Schneier: The Problem with Electronic Voting Machines, November 2004]

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Some claims with sourcing problems.

This claim

although the original procedure had stated that the voter was not required to provide a date of birth, a new rule issued a week after the election called for rejecting any provisional ballot that lacked a date of birth. [2]

only appears in www.thefreepress.org or in articles citing the same. Im a bit uncomfortable relying on a single, partisan source for such a claim when better ones should be available. Opinions? Bonewah (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have Professor Fitrakis on one side, and nothing on the other, then I think we're entitled to rely on his report. In this case, however, I did a quick search and found additional information: a copy of what looks like an official pre-election Provisional Verification Procedure, stating, "Date of birth is not mandatory and should not reject a provisional ballot" ([1]); and an analysis of voter disqualification, apparently done by someone at Case Western, referring to: "PROBLEM: Provisional Ballot rejected because of voter omission (on the provisional application form) of signature, date of birth, or other required identifying information." ([2], p. 13) These documents support Fitrakis's statement that some provisional ballots were disqualified for missing birth date and that this criterion represented a change in the rules after the election. JamesMLane t c 23:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem reporting that DOB was a disqualifer for a provisional ballot. I think that the claim that the rule was changed after the election should be backed up by a really good source, because it is the most relevant aspect of the sentance, in my opinion. Im a bit uneasy making a claim like that where our citation is a self described "progressive" news org and some scrawl in the margins of a fax. Ive looked a bit and I cant find anything about that specific aspect of the claim other then from freepress. Bonewah (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a scrawl. The dates at the top of the faxed document are pre-election; the Case Western study is post-election. Anyway, I don't see why the Free Press's political orientation disqualifies it. No one's suggesting that we yank all the citations to the Wall Street Journal. JamesMLane t c 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one is suggesting that we remove the Wall Street Journal because the WSJ is generally considered a reliable source. Im not so sure The Free Press qualifies, and, even if it does, I would hope for more evidence then the say so of one election observer. Again, this is a major election, we shouldn't have to rely on marginal sources. Bonewah (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Im also not so sure about www.truthout.org. What makes this a reliable source? This link [3] to them is broken, even if it is RS. Bonewah (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Independent Media Center does not look so reliable to me either. According to the wiki entry, there doesnt seem to be any editorial oversight, or reputation for accuracy that you would like from a good source. This looks like a glorified WP:SPS to me. Bonewah (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy article

Bonewah has removed one of the citations to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s comprehensive analysis of the problems with the election. Bonewah asks in ES, "is RS really a reliable source for anything?" I have no problems with Rolling Stone as a reliable source, especially when it's an article by a well-known attorney. Furthermore, it's cited for the proposition that the issues raised included the accuracy and reliability of voting machines. Kennedy's article is a mixture of fact and opinion, and, as to the opinion part, WP:NPOV calls for us to report facts about opinions. JamesMLane t c 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem citing Kennedy's article as facts about opinions. Your comments elsewhere here are convincing to me that the views expressed by Kennedy are at least wide spread enough to report, irrespective of what i think of them. However, Kennedy is not authoritative about voting machine technology, the citation I removed. If he cites a source in his editorial, we should use that source, if he does not, we should find one ourselves or remove the claim, either way, we really cant cite Kennedy about anything except Kennedy's opinion. Bonewah (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree but it doesn't matter, because the citation you removed is precisely for an opinion. It supports the assertion that there were controversies. Kennedy is among the many who have raised this issue. You may choose to dismiss his opinion as ill-informed, but I appreciate your recognition that that's not the standard. Surely, a prominent attorney's criticism in a well-known national magazine indicates that this issue was raised? JamesMLane t c 05:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would expect more then just the opinions of an aggrieved partisan in the lede of an encyclopedia article, but in any event, i think that this link [4] supports the claims just fine, so no great changes are necessary. I will, however, be removing the www.truthout.org citation as i do not feel it makes the standard of verifiability. The site looks like a glorified weblog to me and should be covered under wp:sps. I dont know the process for disputing a reference, so if you want to dispute, i guess we'll find out how its done. Bonewah (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

I added a POV template to this article. It appears to be slanted and loaded with weasel words. --Amwestover (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I should've been more specific on the reasons why I placed the POV tag. From the considerable efforts from Bonewah, and my own efforts recently, I think that the article is worded neutrally. Therefore, I've removed the tag. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No Category?

Why isn't this article in a category?71.126.173.180 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It actually is its own category Category:2004 United States election voting controversies, but im not sure that is really appropriate anymore. Bonewah (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

American Center for Voting Rights

This seems to be awfully one sided. I'm not sure how much to add though. Any suggestions? Soxwon (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The American Center for Voting Rights strikes me as a bit of a coatrack, but some of the sources used there could be useful here. As to how much to add, that's a good question, id like to see the vote suppression section expanded, but we should avoid adding so much the article becomes cumbersome. Bonewah (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

I've added some information that can be backed by court documents and articles from major news outlets for the most part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

4 GOP Agrees Not To “Intimidate” Democratic Voters, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, November 4, 1982; GOP

Agrees to Settle “Ballot Security” Suit, Bill Peterson, THE WASHINGTON POST, July 24, 1987 5 Kerry-Edwards/DNC “Colorado Election Day Manual: A Detailed Guide To Voting In Colorado,” November 2004 (Exhibit A) 6 Manual Reveals Voting Tactics, Lucy Morgan, ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, October 15, 2004 55 Democratic National Committee, McAuliffe Letter Demands Answers From Gillespie On RNC Funded Vote Fraud, Press Release, October 13, 2005 56 CNN’s “Late Edition,” October 24, 2003 57 NAACP National Voter Fund, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond Headlines Get-Out-The-Vote Rally/Town Hall Meeting, Press Release, October 29, 2004 58 Sen. Clinton In S.F., Mary Anne Ostrom, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, October 16, 2004 59 Edwards: Republicans Will Be ‘Up To Their Old Tricks,’ Liz Sidoti, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, October 16, 2004 60 Milwaukee Criminal Complaint attached as Exhibit E 61 5 Charged In GOP Tire Slashings, Derrick Nunnally, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, January 25, 2005 62 Federal Election Commission Website, www.fec.gov, Accessed April 6, 2005 63 Milwaukee Criminal Complaint 70 Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA), U.S. House Committee On House Administration Hearing, Columbus, OH, March 21, 2005 71 See Ohio Republican Party v. Marion County Democratic Party et al., Marion County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 04 CV 0791. (Exhibit F) 77 See November 2, 2004, Order on Motion for Temporary Injunction, J. Thomas Monk, and All Those Persons Similarly Situated Throughout the State of Florida v. Democratic National Committee, Democratic Executive Committee of Seminole County, and the Florida Democratic Party, 04-CA-2312-16-L. (Exhibit G) 78 Poll Watchers Will Keep Their Eyes On Florida, Jeff Kunerth, ORLANDO SENTINEL, October 30, 2004 79 DNC’s “IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE” Distributed To Republican Poll Observers In Florida (Exhibit H) 80 See November 2, 2004, Order on Motion for Temporary Injunction, J. Thomas Monk, and All Those Persons Similarly Situated Throughout the State of Florida v. Democratic National Committee, Democratic Executive Committee of Seminole County, and the Florida Democratic Party, 04-CA-2312-16-L. 82 See Democratic National Committee, et al. v. J. Thomas Monk, District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fifth District, Case No. 5D04-3642. (Exhibit I) 83 Full transcript of Sandler call attached as Exhibit J 84 See Timms et al. v. MoveOn.org, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 04 CVH11 011533. (Exhibit K) 87 See Metzger v. Doe, Lucas County Common Pleas Court, Case No. 04-1540. (Exhibit L) 29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys resolve this via talk page, rather then the Edit summary? Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Soxwon, it would be prudent and not absurd to cite specific cases rather than to a single POV document. Edits like "On the other side" are POV and not helpful. I fear your hesitancy in citing specific examples may be related to the added scrutiny those examples would receive rather than the relative safety of a blanket statemet. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how many do you want? The reason I used "blanket POV statements" was due to the fact there were several incidents, a number I thought was a bit excessive to list every single incident. If you want I can start going through the court cases:

The Marion County Common Pleas Court issued a temporary restraining order against the Marion and Greene County Democratic Parties, the Ohio Democratic Party and America Coming Together (ACT) enjoining them from making inaccurate and deceptive phone calls to targeted voters.71 The judge originally assigned to the case recused himself because he had “personally received a phone call” like the one described by the plaintiff in which incorrect information about date of the election and polling place was given, a point he noted in the Judgment Entry he signed effectuating his recusal. The Ohio Supreme Court appointed a visiting judge to hear the case who then issued a temporary restraining order against the county and state Democrat parties and against ACT. 71 See Ohio Republican Party v. Marion County Democratic Party et al., Marion County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 04 CV 0791. (Exhibit F)

On Election Day 2004, a Seminole County, Florida, court stopped the DNC and state Democratic Party from “further intimidation” and dissemination of materials that were “designed or intended to intimidate or unduly threaten the activities of poll watchers” organized by the Florida Republican Party.77 77 See November 2, 2004, Order on Motion for Temporary Injunction, J. Thomas Monk, and All Those Similarly Situated Throughout the State of Florida v. Democratic National Committee, Democratic Executive Committee of Seminole County, and the Florida Democratic Party, 04-CA-2312-16-L. (Exhibit G)

On Election Day, individuals in Franklin County, Ohio, were threatened and harassed at their polling places by agents of MoveOn.org after being asked about their voting preference and revealing their intention to vote Republican. Similar situations are alleged to have occurred elsewhere around the state and prompted a lawsuit filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. Voters were intimidated by MoveOn.org in an attempt to dissuade them from voting for George W. Bush or in an attempt to harass them after they voted.84 Examples of such intimidation include one plaintiff who arrived at his polling place and was called over to a table operated by MoveOn.org that promised “Free Coffee.” The plaintiff asked for a cup of coffee, was asked if he would voter for Kerry, and responded that he would not. The person at the table refused him a cup of coffee. The plaintiff then noticed that particular individual and others standing near the plaintiff’s car. When he exited the polling place, the MoveOn.org table was placed in front of his car, blocking his exit. When he asked them to move, the individuals harassed him, took his picture and recorded his license plate.85 Another voter noticed a loud and boisterous gentleman at her polling place wearing a “Voting Rights Staff” badge and standing well within 100 feet of the polling place. In fact, he stood right outside one plaintiff’s voting booth and told her that she only had a few seconds left and needed to make her final vote. These plaintiffs sought, and received, a temporary restraining order against MoveOn.org. The complaint has subsequently been amended to include allegations of similar acts by agents of MoveOn.org that occurred elsewhere in the state.86 See Metzger v. Doe, Lucas County Common Pleas Court, Case No. 04-1540. (Exhibit L)

I can also start listing the AP and other articles from major news sources. I don't see why this keeps getting taken out. Soxwon (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got two primary issues. These are Temporary restraining orders and Temporary injunctions. How were these cases resolved? Second, do you have any information on what the circustance were? Or any actual links to these cases? Should we take the POV source's characterization of the events? 71.178.193.134 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being blunt, but your claims of POV are really meritless considering that sources for this article include: Commondreams, Rolling Stone, People for the American Way (liberal group talking about A LAW SUIT), tompaine.com, and The Nation (self described as "flag-ship of the left"). If you'd read the entire report you'd notice there were several news stories from the Associated Press and other news outlets. I'm trying to provide a shred of balance to the article so can we please just drop it? Soxwon (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Blunt is ok and I appreciate the continuing discussion, however, arguing that you're source is good because other sources are equally bad isn't a particularly valid argument. I'm not against the sources in your article. In fact, I've said many times that you should cite those sources. Also saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Dems did bad things too" is simply not appropriate. All the other claims here cite specific incidents with specific references and you should too. 71.178.193.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

I was trying to keep it as short and succinct as possible, I'm sorry if that came across as slinging accusations. I'll edit it to be a little less general. Also should the sources I've listed be valid if American Center for Voting Rights isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've added several more specific events along with their original sources. If there aren't any objections I'll continue. I think that it's important to show there was fraud on BOTH sides. Soxwon (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg Palast opinion

Per WP:NPOV, we report facts, including facts about prominent opinions. On that basis, I've restored the reference to Greg Palast's conclusion about the 2004 election. I haven't yet had time to look at numerous other deletions, but restoring that one is particularly important because the linked article gives the reader valuable additional information about the 2004 controversies. JamesMLane t c 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a POV source, why shouldn't it be removed? Soxwon (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says that we can report minority viewpoints so long as we name prominent adherents, as we have done with RFK jr. I dont really think Greg Palast is prominent enough to warrant special mention here. Bonewah (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Although he's a fairly prominent reporter in some circles, I agree he's probably not prominent enough that we need to mention him here. But his article is a good source for the opinion that Kerry should have won, and the supporting facts. He presents his POV strongly, yes, and that's a good reason for citing him. I've restored a citation to his article, but without mentioning him in the text. -- Avenue (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heavy POV evisceration of this article

The article now merits a POV tag through omission. Extensive material, properly cited and well-documented, has been removed, all to the effect of making criticisms of the election seem unsubstantiated. Of course, part of the problem is the out-of-process deletion of the detailed articles that this one was intended to summarize. Even aside from that, though, the changes made in the last several weeks are, for the most part, improper.

At the moment I don't have time to try to correct the suppression of information. For that reason, I'm not appending the fully justified POV tag. I make this comment only so that no one later makes a false claim of "consensus" or says that a particular passage has been that way without objection for a long time.

I'll mention one particular point: alleged absence of citations. In some instances, they may be found in the detailed daughter articles (because, as I said, this one was merely the summary). In other instances, links aren't currently correct. When Wikipedians have taken the time and effort to research a subject, write a suitably encyclopedic treatment, and provide a citation, it's very questionable practice to delete the entire passage merely because the link doesn't currently work. The Internet Archive exists. By my lights, this edit should not have been made, given that the NAACP's "Jim Crow" report is readily available here, as could be found simply by plugging the dead link into the Wayback Machine. JamesMLane t c 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think this article merits a POV tag, you should add it. I understand that you might not be inclined to try and fix all the problems you see, but this is a group effort and your input is necessary if we are to resolve the POV disputes here. For my part, if you want to add back the stuff from the NAACP with the corrected link, be my guest.

You mentioned the daughter articles that were deleted/merged onto this one, can you be more specific as to what should be included here that is not? Ive been over and over those articles and i just dont see anything encyclopedic there that isnt here as well. Do you think any of those articles have been merged fully or do they *all* contain still more stuff to be added?

Likewise with the most current round of edits to this article. If you perceive a problem with a change, you need to spell it out, as you did with the NAACP report above. Failing that, we really cant do anything except note your objection. Bonewah (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your last paragraph is quite correct, and it explains why I'm not accepting the invitation in your first sentence. Editors shouldn't add a POV tag without spelling out the reasons on the talk page. At the moment I don't have time to spell out all the reasons, so I won't add it. (To the elimination of the NAACP report, though, I can also add, off the top of my head, the elimination of the blockquote from RFK, Jr.; as a report of facts about a prominent opinion, the quotation is clearly proper under WP:NPOV.) Anyone can fix these problems, but, right now, the minimum that I wanted anyone to do was precisely what you said -- to note my objection. Happy holidays. JamesMLane t c 09:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Other inaccuracies on Election Day

I removed the line "A St. Petersburg Times Article found 27,000 people registered in both Ohio and in Florida, with 400 voting in both states consistently in the previous four years." because it was not supported by the reference provided: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/26/Decision2004/Fraud_issues_haunt_ca.shtml 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize that and I plan on putting it in with the correct source. Soxwon (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, and thank you for that. I just wanted to copy the link to that article in case it was needed later, (it is about the 2004 election, after all, it just doesnt support the claim) Bonewah (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)