Oregon Mail-in Ballots & Hand-Recount System vs. New York Lever System: 2000-2008 (TIA, 4/11)

[tiptoe]

Oregon Mail-in Ballots & Hand-Recount System  vs.  New York Lever System: 2000-2008

TruthIsAll     source: richardcharnin.com/OregonVsNYVoting.htm

April 11, 2010

As a battleground state, one can expect that Oregon would closely match the will of the national electorate. Since Oregon votes 100% by mail and paper ballot precincts had the lowest (2%) discrepancies from the recorded vote, we can hypothesize that Oregon closely approximates the national True Vote share. In fact, Oregon’s recorded vote-count share closely approximated the True National Vote in 2000, 2004 and 2008. But unlike the other battleground and strong Democratic states which saw Bush increase his recorded vote share from 2000, Bush lost share in Oregon (i.e., vis-à-vis 'Other'-allocated share, see below).

In 1992 Oregon had a 13.6% exit poll discrepancy. In 1996, it had a 10% uncounted vote rate. These anomalies may have had something to do with the 1998 switch to mail-in ballots.

 

2004

 

2004

 

2000

 

2004

'Battleground state' OREGON

OR PHONE SURVEY Share (±3.2% MoE)

Kerry
52.2

Bush
46.3

 
 

Margin
+5.9

 
 

 

OR VOTE-COUNT Share (%)

Kerry
51.35

Bush
47.19

 
 

Margin
+4.16

Swing
 

Gore
46.96

Bush
46.52

Nader
5.04

 
+0.44

+3.7%
 

 

 DISCREPANCY (%)

 Margin Δ

PhoneSurvey - VoteCount

+1.74%

'+' = share-margin shift to Bush

< MoE

Oregon Voting System Advantages

•
•

•
•

Vote exclusively by mail-in ballots: '04=86.5% '08=85.7%
Each general election: post-election handcount of random-selected precincts
Partial/full hand-recounts check optical scanner tallies
"No recount conducted in Oregon has ever turned up evidence that a tally machine failed to correctly count votes. A full recount is the ultimate test and with each election we always have at least one or two."

Oregon Facts:

•

•



•

Gore 2000:
.44% OR VoteCount margin VERY NEAR .52% National
Kerry 2004:
4.2% OR VoteCount margin was a NEAR MATCH to 5% unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate. Compare to Kerry -2.5% National Recorded Vote-Count margin deficit
Obama 2008:
56.7% OR VoteCount share a NEAR MATCH to 57.1% OR TrueVote model. Compare 52.9% National Recorded share vs his 58.0% National TrueVote model

 

Solid 'Democratic state' NEW YORK

NY EXIT POLL Share (± 2-3% MoE)

Kerry
64.5

Bush
34.0

 
 

Margin
+30.5

 
 

 

NY VOTE-COUNT Share (%)

Kerry
58.37

Bush
40.08

Nader
1.35

Margin
+18.29

Swing
 

Gore
60.21

Bush
35.23

Nader
3.58

 
+24.98

-6.7%
 

 

 DISCREPANCY ( WPD ) (%)

 Margin Δ

ExitPoll - VoteCount

+12.2 %

'+' = share-margin shift to Bush

>2 x MoE

New York Voting System Vulnerabilities:

•

•
•
•

•
•

Defective levers in the most democratic precincts – undercount votes
Too few levers in Democratic precincts – long lines
Pre-set levers stuck on Bush – discourage voters
Late provisional and absentee paper ballots not counted on Election Day
Lever totals input to PROGRAMMABLE central tabulators
No hand recounts – there are no paper ballots to count (except for late votes)

New York Facts:

•


•

•

•

2000-2008:
Democratic late (paper ballot) vote-share 7% higher than E-Day (lever) and matched the unadjusted exit polls
Gore 2000:
25% recorded marg (60-35%)–  2% exitpoll discrepancy
Kerry 2004:
18% recorded marg (58-40%)–12% exitpoll discrepancy
Obama 2008:
27% recorded marg (63-36%)–exitpoll withheld by MSM

 

NATIONAL  Exit Polls  &  Recorded Vote-Counts –  Prelim NEPs  vs  Final NEPs

PRELIM NEP, 13K Random Selection  .86% MoE

Kerry
 50.8 

Bush
48.2

Nader
1.0

Margin
+2.6

 

Final NEP – IMPOSSIBLE  forced match of VoteCount

Kerry
48

Bush
51

 
 

Margin
-3.0

 

Recorded VOTE-COUNT Share (%)

Kerry
48.27

Bush
50.73

Nader
0.38

Margin
-2.46

Swing
 

Gore
48.38

Bush
47.87

Nader
2.73

 
+0.52

-3.0%
 

 

 

 DISCREPANCY (%)

 Margin Δ

 

12:22a Prelim NEP - VoteCount

+5.1 %

 

'+' = share-margin shift to Bush

3 x MoE

• If Final NEP weightings indicate a mathematically impossible number of
   returning voters, then simple logic dictates the weightings are impossible.
• Since impossible weightings were necessary to match to the official vote count,
   then the official national Recorded VOTE-COUNT must also be impossible.
• Since the vote count is impossible, then all demographic category cross tabs
   must use incorrect weights and/or vote shares to match the count.

Consider the following facts:

  1)

In 2000, Gore won Oregon by 47.0 – 46.5%, matching his 48.4 – 47.9% national 0.5% vote margin (51.0 – 50.456 million)

The 'national' aggregate of 2000 unadjusted State Exit Polls (Election Calculator/HistWPE) indicated that Gore won by 49.4 – 46.9%, a 3.2 million vote margin (52.6 – 49.4 million — 2.66 million more than his official recorded margin).

•  

According to the 2000 Census, there were 5.4 million net uncounted votes. The majority (70-80%) of uncounted votes are Democratic. If Gore had 75% (4.0 million) of the uncounted votes, his national True Vote margin (based on total votes cast) was 49.6–46.8% (55.0–51.9 million) — a virtual match to his 49.4–46.9% aggregate state exit poll margin.

According to the 'un-forced' (see above) 2004 PRELIM National Exit Poll, Kerry won returning Nader/Other voters by 65%-13%-... over Bush et al. Allocating the uncounted-adjusted national True Vote (49.6–46.8%) 'Other' share (3.6%), the 2000 National True Vote projects to 51.9–47.3%.
Allocating the state exit poll aggregate (49.4–46.9%) 'Other' share (3.7%), the 2000 Aggregate of State Exit Polls projects to 51.8–47.4%.
Allocating (likewise) the Oregon 'Nader/Other' share (6.5%), the 2000 Oregon Vote-Count share (47.0–46.5%) projects to 51.2–47.4%.
The projections match near-exactly and approach – share and margin – Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate, 52–47%.

Do you agree that these results indicate that Oregon closely reflects the national electorate?

 

  2)  In 2004, Kerry exceeded Gore’s margin in Oregon by 3.7% (51.4 – 47.2%), closely matching the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (52–47%).
  3)  Kerry won the pollster’s phone survey of Oregon voters by 52.3–46.3%, a slight 1.7% discrepancy from state recorded vote-count.
  4)  Kerry's 'national' win of the aggregate of unadjusted state exit polls by 52–47%, a 1% margin-discrepany from the Oregon phone survey.
  5)  In 14 battleground states, the average exitpoll/votecount WPD was a whopping 7.5%. In Oregon, the telephone survey equivalent was just 1.7%.

•  

Is it just a coincidence that in Oregon, with its mandated random audit, Bush’s 2004 mail-in ballot 47.2% vote share declined from his 47.4% 2000 share ('Nader/Other'-allocated, per above), while his vote shares increased in Democratic (12 of 15) and battleground (13 of 15) states with unverifiable DRE and mechanical vote counts and no mandated audit of optical scan ballots? (source, by st/yr, 2000 'Other' allocated 13% Bush)

Kerry won Oregon by 51.4 – 47.2%. Bush won the national recorded vote-count by 50.7 – 48.3%.
Oregon voters were surveyed by telephone. The discrepancy from the Oregon recorded vote-count was 1.7%.
(In the other 14 battleground states, the average exitpoll/vote-count discrepancy was a whopping 7.5%.)

 

•  Regarding the 2004 election, which do you believe?

a) 
b) 

Oregon's vote share reflects and confirms the 'national' aggregate of unadjusted state exit polls (Kerry 52.0 – Bush 47.0%) or
The national recorded vote-count share (Bush by 50.7 – 48.3% and basis for the impossible Final NEP) accurately reflected the True share (i.e. there was little or no fraud).

If you believe a), then you must also believe that Kerry must have done better than Gore nationwide and easily won the 2004 election.

One would logically expect that Kerry would have done better than Gore in highly Democratic New York State.

But that was not the case:    Gore won NY by 25% (60 – 35%)    Kerry won NY by only 18% (58 – 40%)

Not logical, especially since Kerry won the NY exit poll by 30% (64 – 34%).

The exit poll makes sense; Kerry had a 5-1 edge in returning Nader 2000 voters.

Do you believe the NY recorded vote-count or the exit poll of NY voters?

 

  6)

In 2008, Obama won Oregon by 56.7–40.4%. The True Vote model for OR (below) indicated he had 57.1% — a virtual match. Obama’s True national share was 58.0%, but his recorded share was just 52.9%. One would expect that Obama’s recorded Oregon share would closely match his national True share.

•  Do you believe that Obama’s 56.7% Oregon share reflected his

a) 
b) 

True national 58.0% share,  or
the national recorded vote-count 52.9% share?

If you believe a) then you must also believe that fraud cut Obama’s margin by 13.0 million (from 22.5 to 9.5 million).

 

To summarize, Oregon matched the 2000 national recorded vote-count share and was within 2% of the 2000 aggregate state exit poll. It closely matched the 2004 Prelim National Exit Poll but was far from the 2004 national recorded vote-count share. In 2008, Oregon vote-count closely matched both the state and national True Vote models, but the 2008 unadjusted state exit polls have not been released by the MSM.

Now consider New York.

In 2000, Gore won the state by 25% (60.2–35.2%). In 2004, Kerry’s recorded vote-count margin declined to 18.3% (58.4–40.1%). But Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 64.5–34.0%, a 12.2% WPD. Why the sharp reversal of fortune?

Consider the largest counties in Oregon and New York, Multnomah (OR) and Kings (NY):

Gore won Kings Cty (Brooklyn)
Gore won Multnomah

by 74.7–15.0%.  Kerry won it by 74.2–22.8%, an  8.3% LOWER margin.
by 63.5–28.2%.  Kerry won it by 71.6–27.4%, an  8.9% HIGHER margin.

 

It’s an Urban Legend: Bush recorded vote share increased sharply from 2000 to 2004 in heavily Democratic urban areas but declined in rural locations. Except for Oregon — the ONLY 100% mail-in paper ballot and hand-recount state.

Consider that …

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

6)
7)
8)

9)
10)


11)
12)
13)
14)

Oregon votes by mail and NY by lever machines.
In the last three elections, the late NY Democratic (paper) vote shares were 7% higher than Election Day (lever) share.
In 2004, the average paper ballot precinct WPD was 2% and 12% for levers.
Kerry’s margin was 3.7% higher than Gore’s in Oregon (a battleground state), but 6.7% lower in New York (a strong Democratic state).
Kerry exceeded Gore’s margin by 8.9% in Oregon’s largest urban county (Multnomah) but Gore exceeded Kerry by 8.3% in New York’s largest (Kings).

Oregon's 1.7% vote discrepancy in the telephone survey was far less than the other 14 battleground states average 7.5% WPD..
Oregon closely matched the 2004 aggregate exit poll after allocating returning Nader voters to Kerry and Bush.
Oregon paper ballots are available for hand recounts (see 254.525, 258.211, comments).
New York votes are cast on levers, but counted on computers; there is no way to verify them.
Gore won NY by 60.2–35.2%. Allocating the 4.6% Nader/other vote, Kerry wins by 63-36% – assuming equal Gore/Bush defection.
According to the Preliminary National Exit Poll (before it was 'forced' to match the vote count) 10% of returning Bush and 8% of returning Gore voters defected. Assuming these defection rates, Kerry’s NY margin increased 2% to 64-35%, matching the unadjusted NY-State Exit Poll.

Gore did slightly better than his 60.2% NY recorded share after allocating 180,000 net uncounted votes.
In the two elections in which Clinton was the incumbent, the New York exit polls had an average 0.6 WPD.
In the three elections in which a Bush was the incumbent, the NewYork exit polls had an average 8.0 WPD.
Oregon voters don’t worry about insufficient precinct levers, machine failures, vote counts terminating at 99, stuck levers, long lines, intimidation by poll workers, and unverifiable vote counts.

 

If one ignores all of the above, there is every reason for New Yorkers to “love those levers” – except for this: Even if everyone who came to the polls voted and all the lever machines performed perfectly, the fact remains that votes are counted by proprietary computer software, not open source, which can easily be programmed to switch votes that may or may not have been entered accurately. Ay, there’s the rub.

In 2004, the exit pollsters reported that lever voting machine precincts had a 12% error (WPD) rate. Optical scanners and touch screens were 7%. Paper ballot precincts had the lowest (2%). Is the fog lifting? What happened in 2004 should be very clear by now.

In the 2008 NY primary, zero votes were originally reported for Obama in nearly eighty minority precincts. Many New Yorkers love the levers. They have been led to believe that because levers are not computers, they are not subject to vote-switching and therefore essentially fraud-free. But lever precinct totals are tabulated on central computers which can be programmed to switch votes. And there are no paper ballots to verify the count – except for late provisional and absentee ballots which comprise about 7% of votes cast. It is interesting to note that since 2000, the Democrats have done 7% better in late (paper) voting than on Election Day (levers). It is also remarkable that Kerry’s late NY vote share was within 0.2% of the unadjusted exit poll. Uncounted votes declined from 700,000 in 1988 to fewer than 200,000 in 2000 — but the trend reversed to over 300,000 in 2004.

In Oregon, the ballots are separated from the return envelope before they are inspected. This process ensures confidentiality. The votes are counted on Election Day. A record is kept showing each voter whose ballot has been returned. No expensive voting machines, no corrupted election officials, no long lines, no machine breakdowns. In 1996, over 10% of votes cast were uncounted, but the rate has declined sharply since the switch to mail in 1998.

Oregon mail-in ballots are counted electronically, but there is a paper trail if a hand recount is necessary. In New York, computers also do the counting based on reported Lever totals– but there are no paper ballots to check the count. Levers are used to cast, but not count votes. Lever advocates don’t want to talk about that.

No wonder Oregonians are happy with their voting system. Why don't the other 49 states follow suit? They should HAVA look at how Oregon saves a ton of money and how real democracy works.

[tiptoe]

1. OR VoteSystem: Mail-in Ballot, Centr Reg separate from County TallySystems, Hand recounts of tallies

...
Being an all Vote-By-Mail state, Oregon has many differences from Colorado in our vote tally process.
Colorado uses vote centers and precincts in a distributed vote and tally process.
Oregon utilizes a centralized vote tally process with all votes received and tallied at County Elections Offices.

This centralized practice allows for much greater control of the tally process.
• For example, each ballot envelope received by the County Elections Officials is scanned, signature verified and then accepted for counting. This process is done using Oregon's Centralized Voter Registration System. (Vote-by-Mail video)

This system is completely separate from the vote tally systems used in Oregon Counties.
It provides a cross reference in that the number of ballots received and accepted for counting equals the number of ballots counted by the tally systems.

• In addition local election officials are required by statute (ORS 254.235) to perform logic and accuracy testing prior to each election and after the counting is done.

254.525 Test of vote tally system. If a vote tally system is used, the county clerk shall repeat the public certification test described under ORS 254.235 (1) for the vote tally system used to conduct the election. The test shall be conducted after all the ballots are tallied but before the final results of the election are certified or before the vote tally system is shut down. The test may be observed by persons described in ORS 254.235(2). The county clerk shall certify the results of the test. <1979 c.190 §274; 1993 c.713 §36; 1999 c.410 §61; 2001 c.965 §24; 2007 c.154 §47>

• In addition, as you know, the Legislature adopted a new law that takes affect this year that requires for each general election a post-election handcount of select precincts. These will be conducted in addition, of course, to the normal routine recounts we do in Oregon, because each election inevitably includes a few close races.

I must reiterate here an important fact. No recount conducted in Oregon has ever turned up evidence that a tally machine failed to correctly count votes. A full recount is the ultimate test and with each election we always have at least one or two.

John Lindback, Director
Elections Division
Oregon Secretary of State's Office

source: http://www.oregonvrc.org/2008/02/192007_johns_reply_oregons_election_systems_decertified_colorado

 

[jaksavage]

2. I loves my mail in ballot.

The national election process is a mess.

[tiptoe]

3. k nt