Experts confounded: Turnout higher in Ohio in 2004

[democraticinsurgent]

Friday, November 7, 2008 3:20 AM
By Mark Niquette
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
DispatchPolitics

Despite a record number of registered voters this year, intense interest in the presidential election and the historic outcome, Ohio's voter turnout was lower Tuesday than in 2004, unofficial statistics show.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is reporting 67 percent turnout, compared with 72 percent in 2004. She had been predicting 80 percent turnout this time. The percentage could increase as provisional ballots, overseas ballots and other outstanding votes are included during the official canvass in the coming weeks. But overall turnout still is expected to be lower than in 2004, leaving experts at a loss to explain it -- especially because the number of registered voters increased by 319,000 from four years ago.

"That's rather puzzling, given the activity level," said Paul Beck, a political-science professor at Ohio State University.

The total number of votes cast Tuesday declined in 69 of Ohio's 88 counties when compared with official totals from 2004. In Franklin County, for example, about 10,000 fewer votes were cast this year.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/11/07/copy/turnout.ART_ART_11-07-08_A1_4GBQO6M.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
==============================================

Hmmm....without doing any digging, I'm wondering if this provides any evidence for 2004 fraud. Suppose that totals in 04 were inflated by fake votes for Bush...could it be?

[rateyes]

1. Could be. nt

[roguevalley]

13. its fraud. the same thing is happening here in alaska. how can we be down

11% in turnout? It can't.

[smoogatz]

2. More likely a whole bunch of Republicans just didn't show in '08.

I'll bet if you broke it down by region you'd find increases in Dem-leaning precincts and big drops in Republican precincts, especially in the SE, SW and the Columbus exurbs.

[MidwestTransplant]

3. Just because we won doesn't mean they didn't try to steal it.

Or that they took votes this time too. Maybe added last time.

I hope this is being examined.

[But....]

5. And fixed!

that should be the last election in the U.S. when anyone has to even wonder about election fraud:banghead:

[ben_meyers]

4. With out doing any digging

it would appear more likely that the Republicans didn't show up. Bush had a little over 62 million votes in 2004, McCain seems to have gotten about 56 million. Voter turn out is being reported as about 60% by CNN, the same as 2006.
Again, without doing any digging, it would appear that McCain was the worst possible candidate running the most inept campaign in history.

According to the report, several Southern states — North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, and Mississippi — and the District of Columbia saw the greatest increases in voter turnout.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/06/report-08-turnout-same-or-only-slightly-higher-than-04/

If the Democrats had run either Hillary or anyone but Obama the race would have been much different.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Weren't there a couple counties in Ohio in '04 that counted ballots for

140% of the registered voters?

[qb]

7. This reminds me of experts in 2000 scratching their heads over an exit polling puzzle:

After decades of exit polls around the world accurately predicting election outcomes... the advent of black box voting brings with it inaccurate exit polls! Oh well, we'll just adjust the exit polls to match the black box results. There. That's better! :sarcasm:

[LaurenG]

8. That is worrisome. It makes me think someone just added votes

in 2004...

[farmbo]

9. Conspiracy theorist!...Get over it!...Sore loser!...Conspiracy theorist!...Get over it!...Sore loser

Don't you know we're not allowed to examine election fraud in Ohio in 2004?

:sarcasm:

[jimlup]

10. Republicans may have stayed home and...

There wasn't the same last minute focus on Ohio as in '04.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. Here's a thought - maybe the 2004 results were PADDED

It would explain the Bush bogus numbers from 2004. Jeez, why are so many of you so quick to turn away from the dark side? If GW Bush has proved anything, it is that one should ALWAYS look at the criminal angle first.

[althecat]

12. Precisely correct. This is an astonishing article....

See also...

Presidential Turnout Flat: How Did That Happen?
By DU's Michael Collins...
(Wash. DC) In 2004, we were told to anticipate a red versus blue election. It didn’t turn out that way but that was hardly mentioned . By 2008, we were told to expect record voter turnout for the presidential election. Now we’re told that the predictions were wrong, the pictures of long lines, massive early voting, and massive registration increases all went to produce just about the same vote total as reported for 2004.



http://usacoup.scoop.co.nz/?p=966