"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.


Hell....all you have to do is have multiple user profiles in
Netscape/Mozilla, and you can go back & vote once for each. Then, switch
over to IE. Different cookie is set for each user.

Realistically, I don't think the average person has that much time on their
hands, though. :-)

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.


Hell....all you have to do is have multiple user profiles in
Netscape/Mozilla, and you can go back & vote once for each. Then, switch
over to IE. Different cookie is set for each user.

Realistically, I don't think the average person has that much time on their
hands, though. :-)



Virtually all the "online" polls I have seen show the aame approximate
results with 60-70% indicating Kerry won the debate.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?