Electronic Vote Switching from Kerry to Bush: A Descriptive Summary

[Time for change]

In May and August of this year I posted analyses of electronic vote switching reported to the national Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS), which received reports of voter complaints related to the 2004 election. The main findings of those two analyses were:

1) Incidents that favored Bush outnumbered those that favored Kerry by a 12:1 ratio

2) The frequency of those incidents was 9 times as great in swing states than in other states.


This thread is a descriptive summary of the 87 reports that favored George Bush (In addition to those reports, 7 reports favored Kerry, and 52 were unspecified as to whom they favored, but this thread will only summarize the reports that favored Bush). Here is an Appendix which lists verbatim all of the reports which are summarized in this thread.


Candidates involved in the electronic Presidential vote switching

50 reports were switches from Kerry to Bush

15 reports were switches from Kerry to another or unspecified candidate, including Peroutka (2, both in Bernalillo County, NM), Nader (2), Badnarik (3, all in Bernalillo County, NM), Brown (2), Cobb (1), Unspecified (3), and 2 cases where it was noted that the vote switched from Kerry to the candidate below his name on the ballot.

6 reports were of voters who attempted to vote for Kerry, and no vote was recorded.

9 reports were switches from Democrat to Republican, with no indication of the specific candidates involved.

4 reports noted switches to Bush, with no indication of whom they tried to vote for.

2 reports were of handicapped voters who tried to use an audio aid to vote, but Bush was the only choice that they were given.

1 report indicated that the machine wouldn’t allow the voter to vote Democrat.


Other candidates

Of the 87 reports that favored Bush, only 7 of these indicated difficulties in voting in races other than the Presidential one. However, as noted above, there were 52 reports of electronic vote switching which could not be said definitely to favor Kerry or Bush, and many of these involved other races. For example, there were several reports in Florida of vote switching from Castor to Martinez (none the other way around), but those reports are not the subject of this thread.


Number of attempts per voter

Most of the reports did not mention the number of attempts that were made before the voter was able to vote for the candidate of his/her choice. Of those that did:

A single unsuccessful attempt was made by 7 voters.
Two unsuccessful attempts were made by 5 voters.
Three unsuccessful attempts were made by 4 voters
Four unsuccessful attempts were made by 1 voter

There were 18 voters who made 7 or more unsuccessful attempts or who characterized the number of attempts that they made with words such as “many” or “several”. Two of these noted that “persistence pays off”.

In addition, 3 voters ended up voting for Bush because they lost patience trying to change their vote.


Number of voters mentioned in the report

Most reports were confined to a single voter. However, there were 9 reports that mentioned one or two additional voters having a similar problem, and 24 reports noted in various ways that there were numerous additional occurrences of similar incidents in the same polling place, using phrases such as “multiple occurrences”, “several reports”, “common occurrence” or “happening all day”.


Type of vote switch

Most of the reports did not specify precisely how the vote switch took place, although one gets the impression from reading many of these reports that the vote switch often took place immediately after the voter registered his/her vote, and that it was immediately apparent.

On the other hand, 15 reports specifically noted that they were not aware of the switch until the end, when they checked the “review” or “summary” screen, or when they tried to “confirm” their vote. One of these voters noted that the switch on the summary screen took place right before her eyes as she was registering her vote, which meant that she accidentally voted for Bush. Several voters noted that the vote switch was difficult to identify, and only their watchfulness prior to registering their vote prevented them from voting for Bush.


Some anecdotal reports

Here are some excerpts from some EIRS reports, to give you a better idea of what was involved:

… machine would not let me vote for John Kerry. Every time I touched the Kerry box, Bush's box would check off. After several failed attempts at trying to vote for Kerry, I called over a poll worker and demonstrated what was happening. Then a technician was called in and he had to re-calibrate the machine. The technician said this had happened several times already even though voting had only started 90 minutes prior… I told them not to use the machine any longer but they said they had to use it because the voting lines were too long. This is a community of elderly and there is no way they would have known for whom they had voted. I contacted democratic poll lawyers but never got anywhere. They gave me numbers to call but the numbers were always busy…

At review screen, selection changed from Kerry to Bush "before my eyes" as voter pushed red button just before. Voter filed complaint with Kerry lawyer in polling place and told poll worker of problem, who said, "nothing could be done."

Tried 9-10 times to cast presidential vote… Happened with several voters - poll workers said he was hitting Bush with other fingers – poll worker checked cables and said "hit very hard"… finally registered correctly.

Significance of these findings

Neither the 12 to 1 ratio of incidents favoring Bush to incidents favoring Kerry, nor the 9 to 1 greater frequency of the Bush favoring incidents in swing states (compared to non-swing states) could have occurred by chance. Reporting bias is a possibility, but it does not seem plausible that reporting bias could account for such high ratios. If neither chance nor reporting bias account for these anomalies, then the implication is that someone programmed the computers to act this way.

Clint Curtis’ testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic staff suggests an intention on the part of Republican functionaries to utilize electronic vote switching software in the 2004 election. The strange “suicide” death of the Florida investigator who was in the midst of investigating Curtis’ allegations (after telling Curtis that his investigation revealed corruption “all the way to the top”) suggests that the implications of Curtis’ revelations were very important indeed. The recent revelations on the Brad Blog of a Diebold insider (Dieb Throat) suggest that it was quite important both to Diebold and to the Bush Administration that the capability for rigging the 2004 election remain intact.

Nobody knows how many votes the electronic vote switching described in this thread cost John Kerry. Undoubtedly, the great majority of voters whose votes were electronically switched from John Kerry to George Bush did not report these incidents to EIRS. When the revelations of Clint Curtis and Dieb Throat are added to actual evidence of electronic vote switching such as described in this report – which overwhelmingly favored George Bush, especially in the critical swing states of Ohio and Florida – it seems evident IMO that these are issues that should be thoroughly investigated and widely publicized to the American people.

[texpatriot2004]

1. See for yourself

http://www.justaflyonthewall.com/votefraudprogram.htm

[Time for change]

5. Is this the program that Clint Curtis wrote for Feeney?

If so, do you have any idea if that program was used for the vote switching described in this thread?

[Patchuli]

20. I downloaded this not long after the (s)election

and was amazed at how easily they cheated. We didn't put Bush back in the White House. Karl Rove and Diebold did. We must not allow another election until this is eradicated.

[Time for change]

23. Could you please elaborate on that?

Do you think that this particular program or something very similar was what was used to cause the vote switches described in this thread?

Or, was that program used in central tabulators, but not in individual voting machines?

[Patchuli]

27. It was centrally done

in a National tabulator. It had a built-in back door as Diebthroat has told us. I watched how it worked on my own computer. Amazing.

[Time for change]

28. Do you know what states and counties were involved in this? n/t

[Patchuli]

34. Ask an expert

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php

[Patchuli]

36. And this is a good article

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/092005G.shtml

[Time for change]

37. Yes, that is a pretty good article, and I agree with the main conclusions

I certainly do agree that Kerry won Ohio.

Here's a letter that I wrote to Howard Dean to complain about the DNC report that he sanctioned, where I try to explain why I think that Kerry won Ohio and that he has know basis for assuming otherwise: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=380878&mesg_id=380878

And here's something I recently posted where I explain several reasons for believing that Kerry won both Ohio and the popular vote: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2052179&mesg_id=2052179

I don't know about other states though. I think that Kerry won New Mexico and Ohio, and possibly Florida and Nevada. But Ohio and New Mexico I feel pretty confident of

[riqster]

78. What do you mean by 'national tabulator'?

Votes are counted at the county/local level, and then the results are reported up to the next level, typically state. Tabulation at that level is simply the adding of summarized totals.

BTW, Clint's app can run on a server or PC, it is quite portable. The man knows his stuff.

[SDB1]

69. very funny!

Can't believe someone spent the time to develope it, but funny!

[Helga Scow Stern]

2. Recommended. Excellent! Our vote no longer counts.

[texpatriot2004]

16. No it doesn't and our evil Gov is NOT legitimate. n/t

[Time for change]

30. Thank you Ojai Person -- apparently sometimes it counts but ...

for the wrong candidate.

When is our MSM going to consider that this is a problem worth reporting on?

In the meantime, we just need to do all we can to emphasize the problem for them.

[applegrove]

3. You assume "exit polls" are scientific. Exit polls were off in non-diebold

races. And in Texas Elections where Bush was too - before Diebold.

[Time for change]

6. In the first place, do you see anything in this thread about exit polls?

And secondly, why put all the emphasis on Diebold alone? ALL of the corporations that supplied our voting machines in 2004 had strong ties to the Republican party.

More than half of the incidents described in this report came from Florida or Ohio, where there were very large discrepancies between the official count and the exit polls (5.0% in Florida, 6.3% in Ohio).

But that's not the main point either. These reports suggest that there must have been numerous people, perhaps thousands, who thought they voted for Kerry, but whose vote was counted for Bush. When these people were polled after having voted, they would have told the pollster that they voted for Kerry, when in fact their vote was registered for Bush. Don't you think that that would help to create a discrepancy between the official count and the exit polls?

And this report doesn't even go into the central tabulators, which also very likely were programmed to delete Kerry votes or add Bush votes.

[applegrove]

7. You need a baseline to decide what polls favored Bush over Kerry.

You are using Exit Polls which have been debuncked as "scientific". There is no way to decide a change was made without a baseline. Exit polls are used all the time.

Admit it. You are using exit polls.

[Time for change]

9. Show me where in my original post the word "exit poll" was used

And what do you mean that the exit polls have been "debunked"? Who debunked them?

And exit polls do not need or use "baselines". They measure voter preference immediately after the voter voted. It doesn't matter what any baseline vote was. If one candidate is found to have a 3% lead at the time the exit poll was taken, what does it matter what any so-called "baseline" exit poll showed? And what exactly would you use for a baseline?

[applegrove]

11. But voter preference after the vote is based on 100% of the population -

not the pathetic 65% who actually voted.

Get up with the turnout. Right now turnout is pathetic.

[Time for change]

31. I don't know of any polls or scientific studies that require a 100% sample

But if you'd like to debate me about exit polls, why don't you go to this thread?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2052179&mesg_id=2052179

I actually DO talk about exit polls in that one.

[applegrove]

40. I am saying that in an after-poll, when you call people at home,

the basis of your sample, not the sample itself, is 100% of the population - or at least those who have phones. During and exit poll - it is only those who voted which is the basis of your sample.

[Time for change]

43. In any election poll, whether pre-election or post-election

the purpose is to predict the outcome of the election among those who voted (or will vote, in the case of a pre-election poll).

For that purpose it is irrelevant to know how the people who stayed at home would have voted.

[applegrove]

46. This election & the polls are a mess. Sorry for ruining your thread but

you don't take diebold at face value - I wasn't there.. I don't happen to agree. Why would you take the polls at face value. They all end up weighted after the fact. And the base sample size does change the numbers in stats. It does. Rightly it gets corrected for the variability in sample size.

I'm saying it is a mess. And that mess seems to follow George Bush in elections in Texas and for President. They've pushed so many laws and suppressed so hard. I'm just saying - we can't tell because the whole thing is vulnerable. And exit polls didn't match with after polls in places even in places where there were no diebold machines.

I'm in no way saying I know what happened. I'm saying we need transparency. I'm saying you cannot figure the mess out. I know they are liars and creepy vote suppressors. We just don't know.

One thing for sure. We need the people to all come out (that 35% who don't vote in America). There is your win right there. And if you & I were to show up on somebody's doorstep to give them the plan for voting - will we be able to work together? Will one or the other of us piss off that Democratic voter?

That worries me. I worry that in a few years we will be too far apart.

[Time for change]

48. Well, we agree on a couple of things

We agree on the need for transparency in our elections, and we agree that the system is a mess, and we agree that voter turnout is too low.

But what you don't seem to understand is that the subject of this thread has nothing to do with exit polls. The subject of this thread is machines that registered for Bush when people voted for Kerry. This is based on reports sent in by the voters to whom this happened, NOT exit polls. Read the original post and look at the appendix, which contains copies of the actual voter complaints. Certainly, you must agree that this is a serious problem.

[applegrove]

51. I just see red when i hear people assume data stolen

is a done deal. I'm sorry. Perhaps I need help. I do not doubt the anecdotal accounts of Dems. I personally would be suspicious of "ex conservatives" stepping forward. I don't know the answer. But I see us take various roads. And it scares me.

And I see Diebold as an effective wedge. And something that creates apathy and keeps us fighting amongst ourselves (which we have done often & on many issues). To me - that is where the danger lies.

And I hate to imagine how far apart we will be come 2006. So I fight.

[Time for change]

53. I don't think that anything much is a "done deal" at this point

We have voting machines with no paper trails, so that legitimate recounts can't be done. We have voting machine companies refusing to allow public access to their software programs that count our votes. We have the Ohio Secretary of State (Blackwell) who refuses to answer questions under oath about "irregularities" that took place during the election in Ohio. We have (in this thread) reports by voters who saw their vote change from Kerry to Bush. And there is a lot more, such as I discuss in this thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2052179&mesg_id=2052179

So I think that the bottom line is that we have a great deal to be suspicious about. And, like you said yourself, we must have transparent elections -- which is not currently the case. So consequently, we need to work towards two things: 1) Better understanding what happened in 2004, and 2) Passing election reform legislation so that in the future we can feel more confident about our elections.

And, as you point out, we also need to work on increasing voter turnout and putting up good and strong candidates.

So, maybe if we can agree on that we aren't so far apart after all.

[applegrove]

63. I don't think we are far apart at all. I just don't want people who

wouldn't put data vote stealing past the GOP - I don't want them to not know that many people buy everything but that. I don't want it to come as a shock in the lead up to the 2006 elections when we need to work together - whatever our various takes on the election mess.

That is why I pest.

Thanks for understanding.

[Time for change]

64. Well, we certainly do need to work together, you're right about that.

And having different views about what happened in the election certainly doesn't mean that Democrats can't work together.
:toast:

[EOTE]

57. What are you talking about?

I'm not asking sarcastically, I really want to know. And please be specific in your response. Do you have anything to add or refute in the original post? In your response, please address my post or the original post. If you don't believe the election was stolen, fine. But if you're going to argue, please argue the issue at hand and not something that no one is talking about.

[Time for change]

58. I think that applegrove's main point

is that there is too much dissension among Democrats.

And I agree with him/her on that point. The discussion gets so heated sometimes that we lose our ability to communicate civilly.

I don't want to presume to speak for applegrove, but I think that's what s/he's trying to say here.

[applegrove]

62. I am argueing the whole issue and how it seems to be another wedge.

[sendero]

18. God you are thick..

... can you fucking read or what?

[Time for change]

19. Maybe s/he has this confused with another thread?

:shrug:

[applegrove]

41. My point is you do not have an accurate base to gauge how much

diebold is off.

[Botany]

4. It was fair

:rofl:

Screen captures from Blackwell's site on 11/2/04 sure with 6% of the vote in
a county Kerry won he had 0 votes?

[applegrove]

8. Nobody is saying the elections are fair. With money being thrown

at third party candidates - that is another way to suppress the vote. Voter suppression occured. No doubt about it. But we do not have a smoking gun on diebold that is not based on exit polls. And they are not scientific. And the discrepancy existed between the two - even where diebold was not used. Even when it was paper ballots all the way - exit polls were still off.

Very easy to play with exit polls. You just give your churches directions to tell their people not to answer an exit poll. Or to park or be dropped off - inside the 100 foot zone.

Exit polls are not scientific samples.

For sure the elections were played with.

[Botany]

10. Wrong!

"Exit polls are not scientific samples." not if done right.

the exit polls were spot on in every state that had a paper trail
in 33 states the difference between the exit poll and *'s recorded
vote was greater then the margin of error
in the other states the vote favored kerry less then the margin
of error

so in some states people wanted to talk to the exit pollsters but
in others they didn't

the exit polls called governor's races, senatorial races, congressional
races, and issue races ..... spot on

but they were off in the presidential race?

[applegrove]

12. Because they are always off when Bush runs in an election. Even

back in Texas before & in ridings where diebold was not used.... they are off.

Something as simple as busing church people to the voting station and picking them up right outside the door instead of 100 feet to the right - could skew the polls.

[Time for change]

15. Applegrove, would you please read the original thread

This is not about exit polls. It is about people who tried to vote for Kerry on electronic machines, and the machines recorded their vote for Bush instead of for Kerry. Do you understand the difference?

If you want to argue about exit polls, there are plenty of threads that discuss that subject. Here are some that are active right now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x394113

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=393939&mesg_id=393939

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=383957&mesg_id=383957

[EOTE]

32. Nice hit and run....

If you're going to parrot * talking points, atleast try to do it in the correct thread.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. with apologies to Tfc, I think it should be noted

that the exit polls notched double-digit discrepancies versus the official results (Best Geo estimator) on six out of 32 Senate races, including 12.8 points in my state of New York and 15.1 points in Ohio (much larger than the gap in the Ohio presidential race -- but much less consequential). Hard to see that as "spot on."

I haven't canvassed the races for governor, but in New Hampshire, the completely unweighted exit poll result had Lynch, the Democrat, winning by 14.7 points (his actual official margin was about 2.1).

The exit polls aren't used to project House races.

(I don't agree with applegrove that the exit polls aren't "scientific," although it depends on what one means by the term. Part of the science of exit polls is trying to understand all the possible sources of error.)

That will be my last word about exit polls on this thread, so I guess folks can say whatever they like as far as I am concerned. But out of respect for Tfc, maybe we can take it someplace else, eh?

[applegrove]

42. Sorry Tfc

[Awsi Dooger]

73. Not only that, the 2004 exit polls were wildly off in non-partisan issues

Things like ballot measures were not even close in many cases, exit poll to actual.

Thank you for pointing out the vast discrepancies in gov and senate races. I think many cynical DUers wrongly accept that premise, that exit polls are gospel other than 2004 and the "obvious" theft from Kerry to Bush. Actually, exit polls have been declining for years. I posted in the early morning hours of election day November 2, in the "General Discussion 2004" forum, to disregard the early numbers because they were so wildly off base in 2002.

Here is a thread from Mystery Pollster: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html

"In short, Mitofsky and Lenski have reported Democratic overstatements to some degree in every election since 1990. Moreover, all of Lenski and Mitofsky's statements were on the record long before Election Day 2004."

[Time for change]

74. "Democratic overstatements to some degree in every election since 1990"

Yes, but never as great a discrepancy between exit polls and official results as in 2004.

[Time for change]

13. Mahoning County is where all the EIRS vote switching reports came from

Also, there was an investigation by the Washington Post that identified 25 machines that were involved in the vote switching

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1032

[zalinda]

14. What's up with Hamilton?

Both Cobb and Kerry have the exact same amount?

zalinda

[Time for change]

17. That is difficult to say

The county wide vote totals indicated in Botany's post would be a function of the central tabulators rather than of the individual voting machines which are the subject of my initial post to this thread. Therefore, in one sense this would appear to be unrelated to my report.

But on the other hand, I have been told by people who understand voting machines better than I do that programs used to rig individual machines could have been very similar to those used to rig central tabulators. And besides that, the programs are the property of the same voting machine companies, and it stands to reason that if they would rig individual machines they would be likely to do the same with the central tabulators.

But also, I have been told by a good source (Liam_laddie) that he believes that Hamilton County ran a relatively clean operation. In any event, he's looking into it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. FWIW those numbers were changed during the night

The first screen shot shows Cobb with 4,685 votes in Lucas County, but he finished with 15.

The second screen shot shows Cobb and Kerry tied with 39,541 votes in Hamilton County, but Cobb finished with 66.

This doesn't prove that votes were stolen from Kerry (or Cobb), but it _at least_ makes you think that the tabulating system is unreliable.

[Time for change]

47. Thank you for the clarification OTOH

Yes indeed, it does make one wonder about the central tabulating system.

As does the 4,258 votes tabulated for Bush in Gahanna, where only 638 votes were cast (and that was the final election night total).

And the 19,000 votes added in Miami County after 100% of precincts had reported, which gave Bush an additional net advantage of about 6 thousand votes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. it's all a mess

and I don't understand all the dimensions of the mess. Most likely (just my hunch, not a fixed opinion), Lucas and Hamilton transmitted those garbage numbers to the Secretary of State's office (via their shiny new point-to-point T1 lines) -- in which case it wasn't "really" a central tabulating problem. But where exactly did the garbage numbers come from, and how were they changed? (FWIW I think Lucas and Hamilton both have op-scan, but that begs the question exactly how the results get from precincts, to county, to Secretary of State.)

Miami County... the final turnout was right about 70%, close to the state average -- and without those 19K votes it would have been well under 50% -- so I'm not sure what to think. But Bush's winning margin was about 6,000 votes larger in 2004 than in 2000 (not necessarily the "same" 6,000 votes).

[Time for change]

60. Good point about Miami County

Take away the 19,000 votes and you have a turnout of about 46-7% I think. That does seem low, but who knows? Remember, the NY Times articles indicated that Republican voter registration was doing quite poorly. Maybe they had low turnout in Republican counties for much the same reason. And, maybe Miami was chosen as the county to do this with BECAUSE their turnout was so disappointingly low. In other words, it was determined that this was a county where the addition of 19,000 votes might not raise that many eyebrows.

And if you keep the 19,000 in there, then both the Bush margin and turnout are high compared to 2000. Also, there was a precinct in Miami County with 98% turnout, which I believe was shown to be impossible, based on interviews of registered voters in that precinct.

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. could be

I think your narrative implies a degree of central coordination ("Miami was chosen... it was determined...") that isn't necessary, although I can't rule it out. I also think it's facially unlikely, but not impossible, that all those 19,000 votes were Just Made Up. It looks like there were about 5500 more registered voters in Miami County in 11/2004 than in 11/2000, and about 8000 more votes -- about 63% turnout in 2000, 70% in 2004. That actually is about in line with the overall turnout increase in Ohio from 2000 to 2004, but that obviously doesn't prove that it is accurate.

Yes, apparently it was "Concord South West" in Miami County that reported 98.55% turnout. (Unfortunately, the Conyers Report mangled this, stating, "In Miami County, voter turnout was a highly suspect and improbable 98.55 percent." Krugman cited this assertion and subsequently had to run a correction -- in fact, I don't think he even figured out that it was based on an actual fact. This is an example of why, as I know you understand, I'm sort of a demon about trying to get the facts right, so that we don't make our allies look like idiots!)

I wonder what Concord South West and also Concord South (which apparently reported 94.27% turnout) look like in the DNC analysis. I will see whether I can figure it out -- the data sets are a bit intimidating at first glance, but I have to figure them out sooner or later!

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. "a bit intimidating" -- shame on me!

Actually, the 30-plus R programs make a scary impression, but the raw .csv (comma-delimited) data files are mostly pretty straightforward, or at least some of the crucial columns are easy to find.

Concord South West and Concord South are also referred to as "Miami ABZ" and "Miami ABY," respectively. You can find them on p. 82 of the DNC report PDF (the page is numbered 35 in the chapter), where they are the high outliers for turnout vis-a-vis 2002 among "Optical Central" precincts. Concord South West ranks 4th in the state for overall bizarreness.

I think this actually argues against the view that these precincts evince centrally coordinated fraud, unless they were planted as red herrings or somehow butchered (certainly possible). They stick out too much to too little effect, and there are too few others that resemble them. But they are quite nutty, and at least in the case of South West known to be wrong, and AFAIK quite possibly fraudulently so.

Strongly recommended download for anyone who wants to talk about Ohio precinct-by-precinct. The homepage is
http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/Ohio2004/replic2/replic2.html
and the zipped directory of data and program files is
http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/Ohio2004/DNCreplic2.zip
-- the two .csv files contain scads of useful information at ward and precinct levels. Unfortunately, because of redistricting, it is all (AFAICS) from 2002 through 2004, and mostly 2004.

[Time for change]

67. Yes, this certainly is intimidating

The one thing that I thoroughly understand from this post is "AFAIK quite possibly fraudulently so". So I'll just hang on to that.

But I don't understand why you feel that this argues against centrally coordinated fraud?

Thank you for all this work, and please tell me how you think that I could look into this further.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. I thought I would have to clarify that...

No, I didn't say, and I certainly didn't mean, that this result "argues against centrally coordinated fraud." That would be insane.

The point I was trying to make was that egregious outliers don't look like evidence of systematic fraud because, well, by definition they don't look like most of the dataset. I would assume that when people point to these precincts as evidence that Ohio was stolen, they think of them as the 'tip of an iceberg,' but the statistical analysis to date registers them as a chunk (or two chunks) of ice, not obviously attached to anything.

That could not possibly be evidence against centrally coordinated fraud in general. Nor is it evidence that these precincts aren't "attached" to anything.

I don't have any brilliant (or even fairly stupid) ideas about that right now. If you understand my general point about outliers, maybe you can generate a testable hypothesis about the 2002 and 2004 registration, turnout, vote numbers at the precinct level that would represent these precincts as indeed the tip of an iceberg (or whatever -- I'm not trying to sandbag you with that metaphor!).

[Time for change]

70. Ok, I think I understand what you're saying

You're saying that it appears that the problem in Miami County is limited to two precincts -- and if that's the case, then that would not likely have been centrally mediated.

But, that doesn't explain why 19,000 votes were added after all the precincts had reported.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. no, it doesn't

The problem of outrageously high reported turnout seems to be limited to those two precincts. The turnout could have been padded more intelligently elsewhere in the county (although in my quick comparison with 2000, I don't see a strong circumstantial case for that).

[Time for change]

75. Well, you made some good points

As you know, one of my main theories is that one method of fraud was for the central tabulators to add large numbers of votes to Republican precincts or counties in roughly the same proportion as as the actual votes. The strange addition of 19 thousand votes to Miami County after all the precincts had reported falls in line with that. But you're right that nothing else about Miami County supports that theory. And the finding of a 98% turnout rate in a precinct neither supports nor refutes that theory.

So, in order to investigate it further, somebody would have to ascertain an explanation for the 19,000 votes. Since the public has no access to the machines, and since Kenneth Blackwell has refused to answer any questions about this posed by Conyers' Committee (as he as refused to answer all questions by the Committee), I think that this will have to remain a mystery for now. But I must say that Blackwell's refusal to show any cooperation with efforts to investigate this election cause me and many others to believe the worst when we hear of unexplained occurrences such as this which result in thousands of extra votes for Bush.

[OnTheOtherHand]

76. just one more point (maybe not a good one)

In this case, it's quite possible that Blackwell wouldn't know the answer. Whatever happened, benign or malevolent, may have been strictly at the county level, without his involvement or even knowledge. But I would like to know what folks on the ground in Miami Co. say about it.

(EDIT: Drat, I can't get this emphatic enough -- my point isn't about Blackwell at all. It is all about wanting to know what has been found out in Miami Co. so far.)

[Time for change]

77. Yes, it would be good to know what the locals in Miami Co. say about it

But I haven't heard anything about this other than the Conyers Committee's description of the anomaly and Blackwell's refusal to say anything about it -- or do anything about it AFAIK.

It seems to me that it is Blackwell's obligation to investigate this and report what he finds to the public and/or to the Congressional Committee that requested his cooperation.

In criminal cases we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendent. I beleive that Blackwell should be facing criminal charges for the highly partisan manner in which he has abused his position, as well as his failure to cooperate wiht the Congressional investigation into this very serious matter.

But unfortunately, AFAIK Blackwell is not facing criminal charges. And as far as I'm concerned, given the manner in which he has conducted the serious responsibilities of his office, the most reasonable thing to do is to assume that he is guilty of election fraud until he gives us some reason to assume otherwise.

[Chi]

21. Put this alongside the Snohomish investigation

and the patterns are apparent.

http://www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf

"Widespread reports of Unintended Votes Appearing on Touch Screens

Our first Public Disclosure Act request was for reports of problems and
complaints regarding electronic voting. The reported problems were commonplace
enough that KING5 TV did an Election Day television piece on touch screens switching
over to vote for what KING5 called “the opposite candidate.” Indeed, at 3:30 p.m. on
Election day Snohomish Count Auditor Bob Terwilliger (D), wrote an email to another
elections official in California stating that “we seem to have widespread screen
calibration problems”, referring to incorrect boxes appearing checked off on the screen
when the voter intended to vote for some other candidate. While KING5 did not specify
which party’s candidates were involved, in all subsequent written reports from Election
Day, all of the complaints that were timely made to the Auditor’s office, the WA
Secretary of State (R) or to 866-OUR-VOTE concerning Snohomish County consist of
problems with Democratic votes switching to Republican votes, and not the other way
around. These written reports are 19 in number. Voters several times expressed their
concerns that other voters would not catch the error, though the persons complaining
were seemingly able to correct it themselves, but only after several frustrating attempts in
many cases. The experience of having the wrong choice highlighted and then having
difficulty changing it back would likely lead a reasonable voter to doubt whether the
votes were ultimately recorded correctly on the first and only try, since the touch screen
did not correctly record the touch of the screen on the first, second, third or fourth tries in
many instances. Nationally, the national database of calls made to 866-OUR-VOTE
indicates that changes in touch screens were reported in several other jurisdictions as
well."

[Time for change]

22. Yes, this is the exact same problem

In fact, three of the 87 Bush favoring reports found in the EIRS database are from Snohomish County.

And this just goes to emphasize how the EIRS database depicts only the tip of the iceberg of a much larger problem: 3 incidents reported from Snohomish County to EIRS, compared to 19 reports of the same problem made locally in Washington. And it is highly likely that those 19 reports represent only a small fraction of the total in Snohomish County.

[Chi]

24. On an aside....

How did you make out digging up the new voter registration numbers in Ohio?

[Time for change]

29. Here's where that stands

I contacted the organizations you suggested. I can't remember which ones if any I received a response from, but in any event it was not what I needed.

I contacted the NY Times, as well as addresses I was given for Ford Fessenden and Kate Zernike. I received no response from them at all, except that the NY Times sent me a form response saying something like that they would get back with me "if indicated".

With the Help of Bill Bored, I e-mailed Mark Crispin Miller, since his article "None Dare Call it Stolen", referenced the registration issue. He responded to me very quickly, but he is not able to help me with this because the reference in his article was to other research -- he does not have any of the actual data himself, nor does he know where to get it.

OTOH has a friend who has connections with the Democratic Party in Ohio. He talked with him about this, but his friend was not able to help.

Riqster presented my information to some contacts in Washington, and they were very interested in this, but apparently nothing ever came of that.

I contacted the Ohio Project, and Ron Olson referred me to the Cuyahoga County BOE.

I had some discussions with Richard Hayes Phillips on this matter, and he was not able to help -- he is currently giving more priority to another area that he considers more promising.

And, I contacted the Cuyahoga County BOE, and spoke with someone by the name of Bob Claufon (sp?). I honestly believe that he tried to be as helpful as he could. However, their records appear to be a mess, and the numbers he gave me are totally inconsistent with other written information that I have, make no sense in the context of what I know about the situation, and in summary were just not helpful at all.

So, the bottom line is that I've gotten almost nowhere with this. There is a HUGE discrepancy between current official voter registration figures in Ohio and the stories presented by the New York Times reporters and others. I do not believe that there is an innocent explanation for this, and I don't believe that the reporters made it up. However, without the willing cooperation of the reporters who broke the story I don't see where this will get us.

[Chi]

38. At least you can never look back and say you didn't try everything.

Dang you found a mess of avenues to persue...sorry none of them worked out.
Thanks for the summary.

Too bad there wasn't a way for an Ohio citizen to legally demand an account of how many voters were purged, that would get that can of worms wide open.

[Time for change]

44. Yes, that really is too bad

With Black(stone)wall in charge of the election in Ohio and the Chimperor in charge of our federal Department of Justice, the likelihood of a decent investigation into the election fraud of 2004 is low IMO.

Maybe after they're gone we'll get somewhere.

In the meantime, my attitude is that we have to keep on trying.

[understandinglife]

25. Something we worked on in Dec, 2004 regarding Snohomish county

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=208547

And, some of Land Shark's early work on Snohomish:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=235137

Excellent post, as always, TfC! (and, I can't find "exit poll" anywhere in your OP - am I missing something ;) )


Peace.

[Time for change]

26. Oh yes, I remember that one

You and Landshark did excellent work on that.

Did you ever get to look at those machines, or is that lawsuit still pending?

[understandinglife]

33. Have not heard from Land Shark what the status of the suit ...

... or access to the devices is.


Peace.

[Chi]

39. Thanks for the links!

I was around for that thread...but never saw it.

[Barbra Whiner]

49. How to quit worrying and love the Diebold Company

Is there anything else in this garbage dump of a country worth less than our vote?

Probably not. Let's start our own system.

Aux Barracades! No more voting for us!

[EOTE]

50. Welcome to DU Barbra...

Unfortunately, your vote and a nickel will buy you a stick of gum in this country nowadays. This really seems to be the only issue that matters today, doesn't it? I mean, could you imagine this administration showing the unbelievable gall and hubris it has if we actually had legitimate elections? No-bid contracts for Haliburton after another royal screwup by this administration? Highlighting the plight of the impoverished in this country by removing prevailing wage laws? So we can prevent hard working poor people from making a living wage, but we'll not only do nothing to cap the ridiculous profits of a company with undeniable ties to this administration, but we'll save them the trouble of actually having to do anything of substance to earn these ridiculous profits. Deficit and debt as far as our eyes can see? If a republican is installed in office in 2008, I really can't imagine them garnering more than 40% of the vote, and that is ungodly scary. A tyranical minority in this country deciding the country's future. Seems like apartheid to me.

[Barbra Whiner]

54. Can't agree with you more.

Write on, eote.

Let's move to New Zealand before they lock all the exits.

[EOTE]

56. I'm down...

Maybe there's a chance the system can be fixed before I leave. I'm not terribly optimistic, but there's still a chance.

[reprehensor]

55. Criminal.

Just plain criminal.

[genius]

59. You should send this to patrickhenrythinktank.org

I bet they'd put it up on a webpage. Their email address is [e-mail] or you can go to the site and click on the contact link. They are still keeping up information about the stolen election.

[Time for change]

61. Thank you for the address genius

I will send this to them.

[Imagevision]

72. it doesn't matter who you vote for- but who is doing the counting, who is

doing the "tabulating" which of course are the Republicans, the fact that this is happening in the US.? - words can't describe.