User talk:Kizzle/secret/exit polls

I looked over the article and made some notes on a printout of it paper, but i left them elsewhere. i'll get to putting them in when i get them. one thing i put on there is that I there should be a crash-course in stats for binomial/normal distr., so people can know what the exit polls mean. ("now you can be an internet activist who doesn't know how to analyze poll data, too!") Kevin Baas^talk 23:18, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

I agree, take a look at the main page commentary notes if you haven't in a while, I'm taking 3 sweeps at each commentary section. Right now, I'm in the learn process, where I'm just trying to convey the critical information in the proper order, after that comes mucho editing, after sentence and grammar cleanup, the paper is going to have to make sure no prior advanced knowledge of any topic be it elections, statistics (especially in this section), or any of the current events mentioned. But if you have some stuff written down already, please make a note of it. Maybe a good way to bring those edits you wrote down on paper is to just edit my commentary one edit at a time, and include the justification in the edit summary, then i can look at the page history and see each individual change and why you wanted it that way. Either that or just include parentheticals here and there within the text. --kizzle 20:27, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Finished framework of the section, otherwise known as version 0.01. Let the feeding frenzy begin of where i'm wrong. I'm going to start generally rewording shit to sound better, this was almost stream of consciousness when I wrote it, so it needs to flow. Key points where I think its weak:

How do I more effectively present all the official explanations and rebuttals? All must be included, as every possible explanation must be detailed and analyzed, but it gets repetitious in the wording to try and explain something like 10 times.
Ukraine section must detail a bit more the role of exit polls in enabling people to conclude fraud.
Organization responsible for exit polls (NEP) must be introduced.
U.S. Exit Poll Discrepancies section must be checked, double-checked, and triple-checked for accuracy, I think I'm right but I just want to make sure.
Two official explanations to find more detail about for analysis

Prior exit poll bias towards Democrat.
Massive "red shift" implies massive fraud.

Keep in mind its very very rough, so be gentle :) --kizzle 00:29, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

official explanations of this discrepancy

kizzle - do i interpret this correctly that "stake" refers to "stock"; that the ahmanson family owns the majority of es&s stock (in fact, over 2/3rds)? as i understand it, there is legal significance to owning the majority of stock. also i think is significant is the percentage of the voting machine market es&s has. and you said "main financial backer" of caltech - how much percentage of caltech? are they the biggest? top ten? pie-charts for all of these. pie-charts pie-charts pie-charts. Kevin Baas^talk 23:09, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

not sure about amount, that would have to be figured out later in fleshing out/fact-checking. What I do know is that they donated a wing, and give out many scholarships to CalTech... google ahmanson and CalTech and you'll see.--kizzle 04:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I found where you got the 68% stake. i linked up ahmason in the irregularities articles to his wiki article, which is a stub. maybe it could use some expansion?

also, doesn't one of the recent discoveries of ethic violations by tom delay involve this family? a name similiar, at least. regarding an airline ticket purchase on a lobbyists' credit card. or am i wrong?

Sorry, Abramoff, not ahmanson.

mr. ahmanson has touretts! [1] Kevin Baas^talk 20:36, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

and they sure stand to lose a lot of meny if that stock goes down. (for instance, if people switch to the more reliable and cheaper optical scan technology) Kevin Baas^talk 23:15, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

more than 50% of stock: "majority ownership" Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)