Warren County recount - snookered? What Happened?

[harmonyguy]

(originally posted at the bottom of the Ohio 3% thread but got buried)
I may be W-A-A-Y off base here but did the Warren County re-counters get snookered?

According to http://votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/warren.php
"Four precincts were selected, with 3602 total votes, more than the required 3%. (3.8%)"

The counties were:
#21 Mason City East B (826 total votes)
#33 Clear Creek Twp East B (1,143 votes)
#150 Deerfield Twp West A (789 votes)
#151 Mason City NE B (844 votes)
but the number of votes doesn't match the number of votes reported for those precincts.
It matches the number of registered VOTERS but NOT the number of votes.

According to http://www.co.warren.oh.us/bdelec/search/votingresults/canvass_results_publish.asp the ACTUAL numbers for those precincts are:

#21 Mason City East B (565 total votes) MAS C EB AAV
#33 Clear Creek Twp East B (993 votes) CLC T EA ABJ
#150 Deerfield Twp West A (626 votes) DEF T W ACK
#151 Mason City NE B (664 votes) MAS C NEB AFU

for a total of 2848 actual ballots cast, which, based on the 95512 total ballots cast falls short of the 3% figure.

(Even IF the 3% number was to be based on the number of registered voters, the figure is STILL in error since there were 125165 registered voters.)

Again from the recount site:
"Eventually all precincts were reconciled with both the machine count taken today, and with the certified result reported to the State."

Well, if they reconciled with the 3602 number then something happened to those decks, 'cuz, as I see it, according to the final tallies, there were only 2848 actual ballots cast in those precincts.

Someone PLEASE check my numbers, and tell me if I'm nuts.........

HG

on edit corrected bad link

[Griffy]

1. the ref and the replay judge work for te other team.. we must take ..

this fight to them.. at the Capitol.. on the 6th... BE THERE!

[FogerRox]

2. They are Busted---Tampering with a recount---OMG thats criminal

[Ellipsis]

3. how are they busted?

[nodictators]

14. Not so soon. There are errors in harmonyguys numbers

Precinct #21 Mason City, MAS C EB AAV, there are 826 registered voters, 565 ballots cast and 555 total votes. The 555 number is obtained by adding the vote counts for the 4 presidential tickets.

I haven't checked the other precincts yet.

[Ellipsis]

15. OK I'' ll bite on this. 555/11 =55

1+10 =11

...Might be a waste of time, the farmer's got snookered before.

k

[harmonyguy]

17. Sorry pal! No error - you just proved my point ! Thanks.

You're absollutely right. There ARE 826 registered voters and 565 ballots cast. That WAS my point.

The 'total votes' terminology that I used is from the Cobb recount report, in order to help people line up the comparison I was making. Sorry, if it added confusion.

The important thing is that their report appears to have been based on the wrong numbers, 3% of registered voters, and NOT on 3% of ballots cast. If they were able to match up counts using 3602 ballots, then something is very, very wrong.

HG ;)

[Lil]

4. harmonyguy, 2nd link message:"You are not authorized to view this page"

http://www.co.warren.oh.us/bdelec/search/votingresults /... ,

gives this message:
You are not authorized to view this page
You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied.

[harmonyguy]

5. Thanks - links fixed. nt

[Lil]

6. yep - good question to ask. I checked your numbers and you have it

right. If the observers counted the number of ballot they have in their article - if it's not a typo - . . .

http://votecobb.org/resources/contact/
is the contact page if you want to ask them to verify that. I can also do it if your time is short. :-)

[harmonyguy]

8. Thanks for checking the numbers

I sent it to them along with posting it here, and they're getting it to 'the team'.

Hopefully we'll get an answer soon......

HG

[Goldeneye]

7. So, should we send this out?

I can't believe they (the cheating cheaters) could possibly be that stupid...but maybe they're getting desperate. Can we get a consensus on this? Can anyone think of a reason for it to be off.

[harmonyguy]

9. I don't think I'd call it stupid, at least not on the part of ....

....the recounters. Faced with the quality and readability:eyes: of the reports from that system, it could have easily be slipped by them. Add to that being tired and facing what appears to be a growing lack of cooperation from the various BoEs, I'd be a bit on edge too.

Maybe it's just a typo in their report, but if so, it's a repeated typo with what appears to be cross-checked errors.

Let's hear from them - soon.

In the meantime, there are other counties to devour....
HG

[Goldeneye]

10. Sorry, for the lack of clarity in my original post.

I wasn't reffering to the recounters as stupid. I was talking about the cheating cheaters....how could they think we wouldn't notice?


i patched up my first post...

[harmonyguy]

11. I didn't think so, so no problem ...

Well, we're all tired and after a while numbers just looks like numbers. Unless someone is checking everything (and yes I mean everything) stuff gets missed.

An example of this is my earlier post on extra votes in this same county. Here it is 6 weekes after the election and I'm only now realizing that everything needs to be checked. Over a period of time, 14 additional ballots were added to the ballots cast in one precinct. When I did check, I found that when 14 ballots were added, there were 10 additional votes for one candidate and 5 additional for another. Where I come from, that adds up to 15 votes on 14 ballots. This one county had a whole schwack of these.

Who'da thunk? Their system can't add. Or, during the counting process when there were 'spare' undervotes, did the system conveniently generate a few extra votes to fill in some blanks?

I don't know, but I'll be checking a few more counties, that's for sure.

HG

[Goldeneye]

12. Well keep up the good work.

If you need any help...I'm on Christmas break for quite awhile. Otherwise, keep us updated.

[lizzieforkerry]

22. Are you in Warren County?

[harmonyguy]

25. Who me?

Not sure to whom your question is addressed, but if to me, I must answer no. I'm just freezing my assets in Canada.
HG ;)

[lizzieforkerry]

29. Yes, I was talking to you...we need help

I was hoping you lived around here and could help us out. I can use your info though- thanks!

[harmonyguy]

31. I'm glad to help but .....

.....it appears that I must help from a distance.

Let me know what I can do, and I'll do it. If you know any of the folks who observed the recount, I'd sure like to hear from them, to get clarification on this. In the meantime, it's back to the numbers...

HG

[lizzieforkerry]

32. Yes, I know them all-

what do you want me to ask them?

[harmonyguy]

34. Thanks Lizzie,

In their report, they imply that they reconciled 3602 ballots, supposedly being the total number of ballots from the four precincts.

I'm VERY curious to find out if they actually verified a count of 3602 ballots or if they counted some other number.

I emailed a copy of my original post above to the contacts on the cobbvote site, and also posted a link to it in their web-blog, but so far haven't been able to elicit a response from anyone.

If you can encourage the recounters to recheck their figures and notes, and to check the report, I'd be grateful.

HG

[lizzieforkerry]

37. OK- First recounter doesn't remember.

:eyes: Trying to locate other three. Badnarik couldn't have any there- we only had two from Cobb and two from Kerry.

[harmonyguy]

38. Doesn't remember? - C'mon people......

....notes, take notes ! Helps the memory.

Lizzie - please bring this thread to Andy's attention.
HG

[lizzieforkerry]

40. I just pm/d you

[harmonyguy]

41. likewise - and here's another

thread for you to ponder...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x201598

HG

[indigoblue]

42. So, what did you find out? Any response from recount observers?

[harmonyguy]

43. Absolutely no response - disappointed.

I assume that they are awfully busy and are up to their necks in stuff, not to mention some holidays too, perhaps.
I had emailed this info to two of the contact addresses on the voteCobb.org site, and posted it on their recount blog, but so far the only indication that there's anyone home is the one email reply that I got on Dec 23:
"I will pass this along to the recount team. Sorry, I don't have time to follow up on this myself."

There's been more interest in, and action on it from DUers than from the recount team.

Oh well, maybe there was nothing to it. :( :shrug:
HG

[Goldeneye]

13. kick

[Ellipsis]

16. kick!

[harmonyguy]

18. I must not have a life.....

Ok, look - I know that I'm not the only one with no life..... surely someone besides myself must think that there's some level of importance to this, besides just me.

HG

[harmonyguy]

19. pretty blatant kick nt

[Bouvet_Island]

20. Interesting,

can someone use a telephone and get this verified with both number sources?

What says Blackwells office? The kind of response they would give could be good indication.

[Lostnote03]

21. Big Gray Mule Kick...n/t

.....Kaboom!!!

[Bill Bored]

23. 3% of 95512 = 2865.36

So they were 17 (or 18) ballots short (2848 total ballots) of the 3%. While this isn't a huge number, a rounding error could have produced the 3% figure. 2848/95512 = 0.029818 or 2.9818%. A calculator set to display 3 decimal places would read 0.030. I'm not making excuses for anyone, but this is a possible explanation. The reporting is off though as you say.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the fact that the precincts were "randomly" selected BEFORE the witnesses arrived. And it's a pretty big coincidence that these 4 just happened to total only 17 votes short of the 3% requirement. How random is that?

Whoever is in contact with the Glibs might want to mention these points and see what they have to say.

[harmonyguy]

24. Good point !

You raise a valid point - one I hadn't thought of, although the report suggests that they thought they were working with greater than the 3% figure - and mentions a figure of 3.8%

We can only speculate whether or not the recount team did the calculation or were informed of the calculation.

If I hear back from the recount team, I'll post what I learn.

HG

[Bouvet_Island]

26. This one should be fought.

It is a *law* that says they need to be 3%, 17 votes would be enough for the repugs in the same situation.

We can state that we are suspicious because the woman lied about the FBI warnings, that the real reason is we suspect the precincts weren´t random, and that anyway "rules should be followed".

If they made a fraud this big, they probably planned for recounts. If it is a rounding error, it is possible it was made by the people that decided what precincts should be recountable.

Warren county is "suspicious".

[roseBudd]

27. Frank Young, the Emergency Services Director in Warren County may be key

The rest of the politicos and BoE personnel in Warren were informed of the "terror threat" and like most suburbanites would be they were "scared shitless" and bought the story.

Either Young, was a patsy approached by someone pretending to be FBI and possibly being a rural rube he was snookered also.

Or Young is in on it.

I wish we had a way to observe certain individuals bank accounts, new purchases, etc.

[lizzieforkerry]

33. I found out that not all of the Dem board members knew about the

lockdown and the one that did know found out by accident. Most people that were in the counting room did not know that there was a lockdown that night.

[Bouvet_Island]

39. That is interesting information,

I have doubts though on the significance of the lockdown in convincing normal people of fraud. The woman lying about terror threats is more suspicious than the not allowing the journalist to enter the second floor IMO. I have seen on effective rebuttal of the lockdown, pointing to the rules in place, traditions, and those two(?) democratic observers.

Any more background on them, their experience like if they are "sharp", local hearsay and affiliations would be helpful. Also if they knew the people arranging the count or not in advance, and eventual family affiliation.

What would be very interesting information is a verification of the numbers from more sources, comment on the numbers or this thread from different sources. Like blackwells office, the person that published the numbers on the web and so on.

[roseBudd]

28. Tabulation fraud requires clean precincts that can be "picked" for a

recount. Maybe those clean precincts did not have quite enough turn out to equal 3%.

[Bouvet_Island]

30. Yeah,

the idea would be that the people picking what precincts should be clean, they would try to get it as close to 3% as possible, for which several good reasons could be thought of.

It lends/is a rationale to making the precincts "non random" if picking them will mean you don´t need to count more than necessary.

It also makes sence to spread the fraud as thin as possible.

It is unclear how unrandom the precinct selection are, but knowing the three percent rule you could probably exclude a lot of precincts and make a nice list of the most probable candidates. I mean if you are not in control of the entire process from start to end. You could instruct people lower in the chain to pick the closest match to three percent, not letting them in on the conspiracy.

I am not saying they didn´t just pick the recount precincts in advance.

If our opponents are professional, they are managing their risks. But if they are not scientists, they would be vulnerable to rounding error. We might have come across something they didn´t plan for.

The second largest precinct would be a good candidate if there is a possibility to count an extra precinct.

[Bill Bored]

35. Exactly! And Kick too! n/t

[FogerRox]

36. Kickin it 4 Kerry & 51capitalmarch.com

[loudsue]

44. Thanks for the work you're doing, Harmonyguy!

You're awesome!!

:yourock:

:kick::kick::kick: