Best Ohio Election Fraud Article to Date

[L. Coyote]

The Strange Death of American Democracy:
Endgame in Ohio
by Michael Keefer

www.globalresearch.ca 24 January 2005

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html

<quote>

"Al Gore, remember, won the popular vote in 2000 by almost 544,000 votes (50,999,897 votes to George Bush's 50,456,002). Assuming that the 8 percent of Gore voters who migrated to Bush's camp in 2004 more or less cancel out the 10 percent of Bush-2000 voters who swung to Kerry, one can take the base number of supporters for Bush and Kerry in 2004 as amounting to 95 percent of the Republican and Democratic presidential vote tallies in 2000--or, in round numbers, 48.4 million votes for Kerry and 47.9 million votes for Bush.

If 95 percent of the 3,949,000 who voted for third-party candidates in 2000 also voted in 2004, then given that 64 percent of these people voted for Kerry and 17 percent for Bush, that, in round numbers, would add 2.3 million votes to Kerry's expected total and 600,000 to Bush's, raising them to 50.7 million for Kerry and 48.5 million for Bush.

Add in the 20.2 million new voters, 57 percent of whose ballots, according to the exit poll, went to Kerry, and 41 percent to Bush. That means 11.5 million additional votes for Kerry, and 8.3 million additional votes for Bush. The final expected total comes out to 62.2 million votes for Kerry, and 56.8 million expected votes for Bush.

Compare these numbers to the official results: 61,194,773 votes (or 51 percent of the total votes cast) for George W. Bush, and 57,890,314 (or 48 percent) for John Kerry. The discrepancies are striking: Bush appears to have received 4.4 million more votes than he should have, and Kerry 4.3 million fewer than he should have. <endquote>

[Darknyte7]

1. Long, but very good...

You can always score points with me as a writer when you include endnotes. It's just lawyer in me I suppose. :-)

[Bill Bored]

2. I still can't get my arms around this particular analysis

It's been used here on DU many times but I still question the wisdom of using exit poll questions answered in 2004 about an election 4 years ago which ~75% of the 2004 respondents didn't even answer.

First of all, ballots are secret. We don't really know how many of which Y2K voters did anything in 2004. As it says, it's an assumption. The sample size for the question about 2000 was much smaller than the national sample of >13,000. So we are really only looking at the ~25% of the sample that even bothered to answer this question. And according to the answers given in that sample, Bush won the popular vote in 2000! We know this to be false, so how can we go on to extrapolate additional data from this same sample?

I know a sample size of ~3,000 has a not-too-big margin of error, but we don't know how the other ~75% who didn't even answer the question would have voted in 2000 and the sample is unreliable anyway because it came up with the wrong result from 2000. Gore won the popular vote -- not Bush.

IMHO, the best way to debunk either the exit polls or the actual vote total is to verify the Dem/Rep voter turnout percentages. This is because nearly everyone who took the exit poll answered the party affiliation question. We don't have to deal with the unknown of ~75% non-response. We don't have to deal with something someone said they did 4 years ago. We don't have to deal with the fact that the answer they gave did not match the facts from 4 years ago.

The unadjusted polls showed 38% Dems and 35% Repubs. The adjusted poll showed 37% Dems and 37% Repubs. This explains most if not all of the discrepancy in the vote totals, and brings the outcome of the popular vote to a statistical dead heat. That's close enough for me because it means that either candidate could have won. Add to this the usual ~2% national ballot spoilage rate that went against Kerry and the fact that not all the provisional ballots were counted and you have the rest of Bush's margin right there in front of you.

The challenge therefore to exit poll aficionados is IMHO: prove that the Dem/Rep turnout was NOT equal (37/37) and that the Dem turnout was in fact higher (e.g., 38/35) as the unadjusted polls say. If you can do that, you can prove Bush lost the popular vote.

The rest of the article is great!

[L. Coyote]

4. I have likewise questioned the logic of this aspect of the analysis

in previous threads. It assumes that 2000 voters voted the same in 2004. Don't the exit polls support that assumption?

[skids]

7. Here's the point of previous arguments.

Cannot speak to the current article until I've read it, but here's the general idea:

The raw results were adjusted for expected demographics by weighting the precincts and adding the estimates on missed voters. (As an aside, we now know that if the precinct weighting is applied to the final vote totals as a consistancy check, it is actually biased a half a point towards bush)

Later on these results were further tweaked by, essentially, trying to figure out what groups of voters were underrepresented. If the weighting is applied to the correct groups, and the final results are not fraudulent, then technically, this should produce pretty good results for all survey questions. There is of course more room for error on some questions than others.

But the results for this particular question were so out of whack with reality, claiming about 6 million more people who voted (for either Bush or Kerry in 2004) also voted for Bush in 2000, than the number of people who actually voted for Bush in 2000 minus mortality.

This result is so far out of the park that it is an indication of an internal inconsistancy in the final results. Whether that inconsistancy is a result of over-weighting Bush2000 voters in order to make the numbers match fraudulent results, that's just speculation, but it does show the poll to have deep troubles when an attempt to correct for WPE/sampling in a way that the final results are assumed to be correct is made.

The effect of lying to, rather than refusing, the NEP interviewers is something we cannot yet quantify. So it's all up in the air (not just this question, the whole survey) unless we find a way to.

[NationalEnquirer]

14. I totally agree, this analysis stinks.

It just doesn't pass the smell test, which is the SAME test I am using for this election, so dont get on my case for that.
Sometimes, you can get so bogged down in statistics, you can "prove" what you want.
Didn't someone "analyze" the Bible, and find, statistically, all these impossibilities in the wording, such that the guy "proved" that God wrote it?

[meganmonkey]

3. I am only about halfway through, but this is great so far!

It maybe long, but it's shorter than Conyer's report, so I think I will start referring people to read this instead. I may have a better time convincing them!

Thanks for posting!

[tandem5]

5. regarding that Peter King quote at the beginning...

didn't he make that statement well before November 2nd? Maybe he said it again at a later time... I'm not certain. The article's provided source link doesn't seem to work.

[Blue Shark]

6. Great Catch Coyote! N/T

[mdb]

8. Zogby has been saying all along...

Kerry leads big among newly registerd voters. It is striking.

[dzika]

9. Thanks for posting!

Great article.

[pauldp]

10. Prima Facie Case of Fraud

I love this quote regarding Blackwell's lockdown of the polling records:
"According to Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26, such records are to be open to the public; Ohio Revised Code Sec. 3599.42 explicitly declares that any violation of Title XXXV "constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud...."

(on edit subject changed)

[L. Coyote]

11. Isn't the Attorney general of Ohio the person who should prosecute ..

Blackwell for this injustice? And, if she/he fails to, what then?

Was the AG Bush's vice-chair?

[KaliTracy]

12. Ah, But the Attorney General of Ohio, Petro, is trying to Sanction

the Lawyers for submitting a "frivolous" case

-- in which Conyers responded quite quickly

"I write to express my concern regarding your recent request to sanction those attorneys who brought a legal challenge to last year's presidential election in Ohio. In particular, I am concerned that by seeking official censure and fines, you are engaged in a selective and partisan misuse of your legal authority. As eager as many disgruntled voters are to have a court of law finally assess the merits of the challenge actions, I have serious doubts about the validity of the sanctions case your office is pursuing. "

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohagsanctionltr12005.pdf

See Article Here about it too... http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1102

[L. Coyote]

13. Partisan Attorney General is greater problem than SOS.

The legal buck stops at the AG! And now, Bush's counsel will become the US Attorney General.

Add these problems to the reforms needed list. The Chief law enforcement officers should not be partisan appointments. Both parties need to be subject to the election laws (and other laws, like no torture).

[L. Coyote]

15. kick == good read

[seaclyr]

16. Interesting article, compelling writing, but..

I too am not completely sure that his conclusions are justified by his argument. Not that I don't agree with the conclusions, I just think there are stronger arguments for fraud (some of which he lays out earlier on in his article). Having said that, he is a terrific writer!

[L. Coyote]

17. kick