Anyone got updated election check stats on these late 37 OH counties?

[m.standridge]

As of 3/11/05, among the various sources I've located, there were 37 counties in OH still to be looked at as to possible "anomalies".
Ashland
Ashtabula
Athens
Belmont
Carroll
Clark
Columbiana
Coshocton
Fayette
Fulton
Gallia
Guernsey
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Huron
Jackson
Lake
Marion
Meigs
Monroe
Morgan
Muskingum
Noble
Ottawa
Paulding
Perry
Pike
Ross
Scioto
Seneca
Tuscawaras
Van Wert
Vinton
Wayne
Wood
Wyandott

Anyone got stats on some or all of those?
As of Phillips' (c)12/20/04 paper,("Estimated Vote Count In Ohio"),which had "73 counties still to go", the larger study done for Jackson and Conyers, which added additional counties in January, and a piece posted here at DU by "bernview" of 3/11/05 which added an additional 7, that made a total of 51 counties that had been examined for anomalies in OH.
In order to solidify the claim of "fishiness" in Ohio, we'll need all the county stats, to verify no large-scale "shift" back to Bush could have occurred in the remaining 37 counties above-- that is, to verify that no fraud occurred in Kerry's direction that could offset the seeming lead Kerry would have achieved given the seeming anomalies in the previously-examined 51 counties.
Anyone?
I'd prefer data that can be found "in the computers" potentially, on some kind of audit--but I'll take any "anomalies," including further allegations of "disenfranchisement" along the lines of the affidavits we've seen previously (at least, to start).
Then we can start to nail this thing down. That would allow us to answer that potential GOP argument that, until all the counties and precincts are looked at, that, as long as enough votes are out there for a major fraud in Kerry's direction in those remaining precincts, we should go on counting and not concluding.
So--any stats? I'm sure several folks would like to see them, not all Democrats.

[mod mom]

1. Can you get the info from this link currently posted here:

http://people.umass.edu/atolopko/cs591y/data.arff

entire US including OH

[m.standridge]

2. OK for forum, here are these OH counties from that U/Mass Site

So, here they are.
Finished with all the OH counties, then. We can begin to examine everything. May, 2005 before we get this. Can we counter any GOP argu'ts that there was "counter-fraud" in these last 37?

OH_ashland, "OH", "Ashland", 8345, 15826, 0, 0, "Optical Scan", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 52523, 0.49125145174495, 0.50874854825505, 0.556080193439065, 0.234316394722312, "Bush"
OH_ashtabula, "OH", "Ashtabula", 23545, 20621, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 102728, 0.487384160112141, 0.512615839887859, 0.542140409625419, 0.242192975624951, "Kerry"
OH_athens, "OH", "Athens", 17369, 9912, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 62223, 0.488645677643315, 0.511354322356685, 0.687125339504685, 0.163508670427334, "Kerry"
. . .
OH_belmont, "OH", "Belmont", 17256, 15275, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 70226, 0.490900805969299, 0.509099194030701, 0.543972317944921, 0.280864637029021, "Kerry" . . .

OH_carroll, "OH", "Carroll", 6190, 7531, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 28836, 0.495006242197253, 0.504993757802747, 0.546400332917187, 0.247641836593147, "Bush" . . .

OH_clark, "OH", "Clark", 32824, 34444, 0, 1, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 144742, 0.480641417142225, 0.519358582857774, 0.545432562766854, 0.247481726105761, "Bush" . . .

OH_columbiana, "OH", "Columbiana", 22884, 25212, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 112075, 0.497006468882445, 0.502993531117555, 0.553620343519964, 0.247164844969886, "Bush"
OH_coshocton, "OH", "Coshocton", 6763, 9121, 0, 0, "Optical Scan", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 36655, 0.48847360523803, 0.51152639476197, 0.538534988405402, 0.248151684626927, "Bush" . . .

OH_fayette, "OH", "Fayette", 4244, 7221, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 28433, 0.493124186684486, 0.506875813315514, 0.549150634825731, 0.241585481658636, "Bush" . . .

OH_fulton, "OH", "Fulton", 8098, 13443, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 42084, 0.488641764090866, 0.511358235909134, 0.554890219560878, 0.213240186294079, "Bush"
OH_gallia, "OH", "Gallia", 5188, 8320, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 31069, 0.488171489265828, 0.511828510734172, 0.555827352022917, 0.240690076925553, "Bush" . . .

OH_guernsey, "OH", "Guernsey", 7072, 9095, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 40792, 0.485757011178662, 0.514242988821338, 0.53802216120808, 0.246788585997254, "Bush" . . .


OH_hardin, "OH", "Hardin", 4723, 8187, 0, 0, "Optical Scan", "Diebold Election Systems", "", 31945, 0.489622789168884, 0.510377210831116, 0.581217717952731, 0.217342307090311, "Bush"
OH_harrison, "OH", "Harrison", 3824, 4318, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 15856, 0.484674571140262, 0.515325428859738, 0.526046922300706, 0.285759334006054, "Bush"
OH_henry, "OH", "Henry", 5027, 9770, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 29210, 0.493906196508045, 0.506093803491955, 0.547928791509757, 0.229476206778501, "Bush" . . .

"Hocking", . . .

OH_huron, "OH", "Huron", 10354, 14553, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "", "", 59487, 0.489938978264159, 0.510061021735841, 0.554087447677644, 0.209945030006556, "Bush"
OH_jackson, "OH", "Jackson", 5519, 8382, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 32641, 0.482521981556938, 0.517478018443062, 0.556478049079379, 0.229374100058209, "Bush" . . .

OH_lake, "OH", "Lake", 57471, 60615, 0, 0, "E-Voting", "Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc.", "", 227511, 0.485827058911437, 0.514172941088563, 0.560104786142208, 0.240032350084172, "Bush" . . .

OH_marion, "OH", "Marion", 11492, 16729, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 66217, 0.516589395472462, 0.483410604527538, 0.572707914885905, 0.22574263406678, "Bush" . . .

OH_meigs, "OH", "Meigs", 4334, 6156, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 23072, 0.486433772538141, 0.513566227461859, 0.551924410540915, 0.253207350901526, "Bush" . . .

OH_monroe, "OH", "Monroe", 4164, 3370, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 15180, 0.493610013175231, 0.506389986824769, 0.526416337285903, 0.282806324110672, "Kerry" . . .

OH_morgan, "OH", "Morgan", 2810, 3695, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 14897, 0.491172719339464, 0.508827280660536, 0.529569712022555, 0.265154057863999, "Bush" . . .


OH_muskingum, "OH", "Muskingum", 16050, 21901, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 84585, 0.479115682449607, 0.520884317550393, 0.550428562983981, 0.236223916770113, "Bush"
OH_noble, "OH", "Noble", 2618, 3799, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 14058, 0.566652439891877, 0.433347560108123, 0.60186370749751, 0.21653151230616, "Bush"
OH_ottawa, "OH", "Ottawa", 10915, 11820, 0, 0, "Optical Scan", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 40985, 0.493595217762596, 0.506404782237404, 0.535122605831402, 0.27790655117726, "Bush"
OH_paulding, "OH", "Paulding", 3544, 6074, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 20293, 0.491647366086828, 0.508352633913172, 0.556990095106687, 0.224264524712955, "Bush"
OH_perry, "OH", "Perry", 7205, 7767, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 34078, 0.497358999941311, 0.502641000058689, 0.557749867949997, 0.208844415752098, "Bush" . . .


OH_pike, "OH", "Pike", 5865, 6385, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 27695, 0.488355298790395, 0.511644701209605, 0.54879942227839, 0.227225130890052, "Bush" . . .


OH_ross, "OH", "Ross", 13701, 16940, 0, 0, "E-Voting", "MicroVote General Corporation", "464", 73345, 0.520021814711296, 0.479978185288704, 0.585834071852205, 0.217083645783625, "Bush" . . .

OH_scioto, "OH", "Scioto", 16438, 17938, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 79195, 0.488073742029169, 0.511926257970831, 0.555375970705221, 0.246808510638298, "Bush"
OH_seneca, "OH", "Seneca", 10770, 15624, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 58683, 0.494862225857574, 0.505137774142426, 0.563127311146329, 0.225891655164187, "Bush" . . .

OH_tuscarawas, "OH", "Tuscarawas", 18460, 23359, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 90914, 0.48732868425105, 0.51267131574895, 0.546791473260444, 0.244780781837781, "Bush" . . .

OH_vanwert, "OH", "Van Wert", 4026, 10484, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 29659, 0.488452071883745, 0.511547928116255, 0.539532688222799, 0.247884284702788, "Bush"
OH_vinton, "OH", "Vinton", 2612, 3194, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 12806, 0.49765734811807, 0.50234265188193, 0.556223645166328, 0.218257066999844, "Bush" . . .

OH_wayne, "OH", "Wayne", 19455, 31433, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 111564, 0.493797282277437, 0.506202717722563, 0.561417661611272, 0.212469972392528, "Bush" . . .

OH_wood, "OH", "Wood", 28216, 32574, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 121065, 0.484070540618676, 0.515929459381324, 0.620427043323834, 0.187552141411638, "Bush"
OH_wyandot, "OH", "Wyandot", 3554, 6956, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 22908, 0.487384319888249, 0.512615680111751, 0.542037716081718, 0.247031604679588, "Bush"

______

Anyone, any perspectives on this? Ohio is done.

[m.standridge]

4. sorry about "Hocking"

we had that county already--just couldn't resist including the word, as in, "someone's ________ us...".

[m.standridge]

5. data keys and strings: 1st # Bush 2nd# Kerry 3rd Nader. . . pop%'s@end

@relation ElectionData
@attribute Key string
@attribute State {AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY}
@attribute County string
@attribute BushVotes numeric
@attribute KerryVotes numeric
@attribute NaderVotes numeric
@attribute Incidents numeric
@attribute Technology {"", "Lever", "E-Voting", "Paper Ballots", "Punch Card", "Optical Scan"}
@attribute Vendor {"", "Automatic Voting Machine (AVM)", "MicroVote General Corporation", "Diebold Election Systems", "Fidlar Doubleday", "Danaher Controls (Danaher Guardian)", "Unilect Corporation", "Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc.", "Hart InterCivic", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "Voting Technologies International", "DFM Associates", "Advanced Voting Solutions (AVS, formerly Shoup) "}
@attribute Model {"optech eagle iv-c", "electronic1242", "", "model 105", "model 100 & optech iii-p", "electronic 1242", "3p eagle", "microvote464 '92", "optech iv-c/200", "accuvote-es2001b", "model 650", "(es&s)", "votronic model 1", "microvote464 '90", "pbc-iiid", "optech eagle iii-p", "pom50", "model 315 & model 650", "3.2", "optech 3.53 ems and aero", "mv-464", "printomatic", "optech 3pe", "accuvote os", "ies (shoup)", "model 2.5 (shoup)", "optech iii-p", "datavote", "optec iv-c", "optech 111pe & optech iv-c", "pc votomatic", "100 omr", "pbc-5", "global ncs opt scan 5", "optech iii ", "pcbt networked", "optech 3 eagle", "ces & brc p-iii", "pcbt - networked (pc based", "optech iii eagle", "pom-40", "accuvote-ts r6", "accuvote-os", "pom40", "model 100, 150, 315", "various", "1242", "650 omr", "ivotronic (leased this yr.; formerly optical scan)", "eagle 3p", "optech iiip eagle", "avm", "ev 2000", "ais 315", "shouptronic1242", "es&s ivotronic '03", "accuvote", "optech iii-p & optech iii-p eagle", "model 550 & optech iii", "optech iv", "patriot", "optech iii-p, optech iii-p eagle", "accu-vote tsr6", "optech 2", "na", "mark-a-vote", "optec ii (precinct ballot tabulator)", "model", "model 500", "avc edge", "accuvote es-2000", "eslate", "optech iii-p eagle", "optech iii-p, optech iii-p eagle, & model 100", "microvote464 '88", "rfs (shoup)", "ais 115", "optech iii-p, optech iii-p eagle & model 100", "pom-50", "650", "pbciiid", "ces", "model 150", "optech 3p eagle", "optech iii", "optech iv c scanner", "optech iv-c/400", "model 100 ", "model 115", "winvote", "votware '03", "bccs punchcard 312", "shoup", "votomatic", "microvote464 '94", "microvote infinity .04", "avm lever", "accuvote/es&s model 100", "model 100, model 650", "ais", "votomatic (ces)", "m 315 (x2) m 550 (x1)", "a accuvote", "accu-vote ts", "2.5", "ces votomatic", "accuvote es", "optech ivc-400", "printomatic-30", "airmac", "avc-edge", "model 150 & model 315", "punch card", "rs", "avc", "accuvote-ts", "ivotronic", "microvote infinity '03", "optech iv c", "microvote464 '91", "pcbt - stand (pc based punch-card", "optech ivc-200", "accu-vote", "model 2.5", "bccs punchcard 228", "optech 100", "1242b", "model 550", "sequoia avm lever", "microvote464 '86", "optech iv and model 100", "data vote", "patriot system", "ballotnow", "optech ii", "115", "etnet ballot tabulation 2.44", "shouptronic 1242", "avc edge 1", "microvote464 '02", "115 omr", "optech iii-pe", "mechanical lever machine", "550 omr", "es-2000", "550", "brc punchcard", "optech 3p", "dell ultra scan", "np", "ais 550", "optech iii p eagle", "optech eagle", "pbc 2100", "pc", "optech 400 c", "accuvote ts-r4", "optech iii-p eagle & optech iv-c 400", "shouptronic", "m100", "model 150; model 100", "eslate 3000", "microvote464 '93", "n/a", " ", "ivotronic '03", "votronic", "pcbt stand", "ev-2000", "accuvote es 2000", "avc advantage", "jvotemv-464", "cse model iii-a", "optech", "ns/rs", "patriot (dre)", "optech iv-c 400", "accutouch dre '02", "model 100", "model 315", "dis", "model 100 & model 650", "advantage", "optech iii-p or optech iii-p eagle", "inkavote", "315", "eagle", "model 600 (fidlar gbs)", "infinity", "accuvote ", "ais 150", "accuvote 2000", "optech iiipe", "m-100", "cesvotomatic", "accuvote/es&s m100", "150", "avm 40", "accutouch", "e slate", "optech iv-c 200", "pbc-2100 / pbc-iiid", "464", "eslate 2.1", "edge", "bccs 228", "150 omr", "accuvote -es2001b", "optech iii-pe & optech iv-c 400", "model 464", "model 100 & model 550", "ns", "model 150 ", "pollstar", "pc net", "accuvote/ess&s model 100", "votronic model 1 model 1", "microvote464 '98"}
@attribute Population numeric
@attribute MalePct numeric
@attribute FemalePct numeric
@attribute 54YoungerPct numeric
@attribute 55OlderPct numeric
@attribute Winner { Kerry, Bush, Nader, N/A }
@data

[m.standridge]

6. I count 4 Kerry counties, 33 Bush, as listed

So if Kerry hasn't fudged in the previous 51, he's got to in these last 4, it would seem. Are there enough numbers in those last four to suggest this?

"OH_ashtabula, "OH", "Ashtabula", 23545, 20621, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 102728, 0.487384160112141, 0.512615839887859, 0.542140409625419, 0.242192975624951, "Kerry"
OH_athens, "OH", "Athens", 17369, 9912, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 62223, 0.488645677643315, 0.511354322356685, 0.687125339504685, 0.163508670427334, "Kerry"
. . .
OH_belmont, "OH", "Belmont", 17256, 15275, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)", "", 70226, 0.490900805969299, 0.509099194030701, 0.543972317944921, 0.280864637029021, "Kerry" . . .

OH_monroe, "OH", "Monroe", 4164, 3370, 0, 0, "Punch Card", "Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.", "", 15180, 0.493610013175231, 0.506389986824769, 0.526416337285903, 0.282806324110672, "Kerry" . . ."

So--Kerry's carrying these counties that involved this number of votes:
circa 44,000 in Ashtabula
circa 29,000 in Athens
circa 32,600 in Belmont
circa 7500 in Monroe
= circa 113,100 votes.

So, did Kerry have "clerks" in place to fudge in those counties, to produce enough votes to cheat Bush out of a lead if one only examined the previous 51 counties, as the GOP would try to counter? But then, what about Bush in that remaining 33--what happened there?

[m.standridge]

3. Well, one thing: we'll need turnout stats

for these counties, these can be found a the Sec'y State's site.
Precinct-level would be useful, too.
Then we'll need comparisons to 2000, percentages versus 100% turnout,
Demographics might be helpful, too.
I see some Kerry counties here, but most seem to be Bush counties.
But this could mean anything--it's just that it seems more likely that Kerry would be "fudging" in his strong areas, not these largely more rural ones, if he were fudging anywhere.

So, what now?
Nothing overwhelming here, to suggest fraud one way or the other.
Which works, at this point, it would seem to me, in Kerry's favor, given the anomalies found elsewhere in the state, in the previous 51 counties (of the 88 OH counties).

There might be some usefulness to getting an estimate of the total vote in these last 37, then to breaking it down as clearly as possible on party and demographic/gender lines.
That might let us know, approximately, how much potential this would have to reverse any possible Kerry lead attained in the previous 51 counties if frauds were undone.

Some stats from the previous 51 counties were suggesting a Kerry lead, some even a Kerry lead of as much as 6300 votes in the previous 51 counties. So, unless Bush is somehow picking up ground dramatically in these last 37, above votes previously counted--Kerry's hypothetical lead would stll stand. Of course, this might depend on how small it was.

[rigel99]

14. THIS LINK NOW SECURE / NOT AVAILABLE

any idea on how to get the entire file again?

[emlev]

7. from Richard Hayes Phillips's project coordinator

The 15 counties analyzed by Richard and our team represented about two-thirds of the votes in the state. We have precinct level information including voter turnout data on most of the remaining counties. The main reasons we have not continued our analysis are:

-we needed financial backing to continue
-there was no indication that our findings would be used in ways significant enough to merit all that work

If these factors were to change, I would happily discuss with Richard the possibility of continuing to analyze the remaining counties.

[m.standridge]

8. There were other people

and groups involved in counting and analysing data from additional counties and precincts. See, for example, "Kerry Supports Ohio Investigation, Jackson Says," by Steven Rosenfeld, dated November 28, 2004, at the Free Press website, at which Professor Phillips' piece "Estimated Vote Count in Ohio" also appeared. See also "bernview"'s posting here at DU of March 11, 2005 "Summary of Election Fraud and Manipulation in Ohio by county", which included stats for an additional 9 counties above the ones in the Phillips' article. Between these two pieces and your own, all counties were to some extent "covered" except a final 37. I was able to put together the names of the remaining 37 via a state website in OH. Thanks again to Mod Mom for the data from the U/Mass Site for those.
I appreciate your effort, and I appreciate the fact that your efforts were aimed at helping sway reluctant politicians to confront the possibility of challenging Ohio's Electors.
There, indeed, was a blip, but not enough. Obviously, from the standpoint of making some legal change, these data can't accomplish that.
What I think they have done, is tended to remove any GOP counter-argument that there might be enough votes still remaining in those final 37 counties, to allow the possibility of a Kerry-aiding anomaly or fraud of some type, that would offset the apparent or hypothetical Kerry lead "established" by the analyses up to that point.
That is all that was needed at this point. But, you know, just wanted to see the stats, and be able to put this potential GOP argument to rest before it could be raised. We have enough garbahg to deal with from the GOP, some pollsters, and much of the news media already. We didn't need one more argument raised. I think this could have the effect of short-circuiting that effort.
What continues to boggle my mind, is how dis-combooberated this whole thing with finding anomalies in Ohio, was. There were at least three different groups of data I found, none of them by groups that were in any kind of communication with each other. These were just people like me, individuals working on a shoestring budget--really, no budget. Yet, interestingly, they reveal, between them, anomalies suggesting Kerry carried Ohio and suggesting there are no counter-vailing anomalies that would have helped Bush.
It's just amazed me, the way not a dime was put toward this by the Democratic Party.

[emlev]

11. I don't understand this part of your post

"What I think they have done, is tended to remove any GOP counter-argument that there might be enough votes still remaining in those final 37 counties, to allow the possibility of a Kerry-aiding anomaly or fraud of some type, that would offset the apparent or hypothetical Kerry lead "established" by the analyses up to that point."

Who or what is the "they" you refer to at the beginning of that quote? Can you restate your point here, because I'm really not getting it.

Thanks.

[m.standridge]

12. well, there were three places or sources

were the data was found: Professor Phillips's "Estimatted Vote Count in Ohio"--which cites the 15 counties you'd described earlier in this thread;
an additional article from November, with data that was updated through January (up until the Senate/House showdown vote on certifying Ohio's Electors), "Jesse Jackson Says Kerry Supports..." which I cited previously. This article includes additional counties which had possibly significant statistical anomalies, and which brought the total number of counties examined AND PUBLISHED AS SUCH, up to 42.
An additional 9 counties are cited in an article by "bernview1" that appeared here at the Democratic Underground forums on March 11, 2005. This article gave the final ANOMALOUS stats from Ohio. This brought the total number of counties listed in published articles on Ohio, to 51.
But what was left, were the details on the remaining 37 counties of the 88 counties in Ohio. These were counties that didn't have "overwhelming" evidence of anomalies that could be interpreted as fraud by Bush against Kerry.
NEVERTHELESS, they were important in answering the "cherry picking" argument that was raised repeatedly against Gore re: Florida in 2000. In other words, until ALL the counties were up there, compared to each other and examined for anomalies OF ALL KINDS and PUBLISHED as such, the door was left open for a GOP counter that the Dems were just "cherry picking," revealing anomalies only in those counties where such made Kerry look better, while avoiding publication of stats that would look the other way.
I'm not saying this is a valid argument. I'm saying the door was left open for it, in the public forum, without that other county data being published up there.
The vagueness of this, could be part of the reason the MSM has avoided this as a topic. After all, in 1976, a semi-recount in New Mexico put Ford 2000 votes better off than he'd been. Usually, recounts, etc., favor Democrats, as you know. But there ain't no guarantee--and this, the GOP would run with. ("Don't stop there!")
I'm simply noting that this additional data from these largely non-anomalous (from Kerry's perspective) counties, needed to be published alongside the rest, so there will be no potential "hole" that statisticians--or reporters-- could fear falling into if they "concluded" about Ohio.
Again, it's the "cherry picking" argument, essentially, we're trying to avert or prevent here. Professor Phillips is aware of this argument: his poem "Mister Gore" refers to it at his Site.
And, again, as I said before, I appreciate your efforts. What I am continually astonished by, is that there is no automatic machinery in place, in our democracy, to check out anomalies such as these. But there isn't. There are only individual human beings, just private citizens, doing it on their own time, basically.

[emlev]

13. I understood all that

You didn't answer my question about who "they" were that you were referring to. But I asked you to restate your point, so I'll assume that because I understand the restatement, it's okay to let go of the part I still don't get.

USCountvotes.org. is working to set up the kind of automated system you describe. If you're not familiar with them, you might want to check out their work.

[m.standridge]

16. The only other context for "they" in the post is the statistics themselves

--THEY reveal no real apparent anomalies, on balance, in the overall aggregate, that would suggest a countervailing Kerry campaign attempt at cheating in Ohio, in those other counties not originally "done"--or, perhaps more precisely, published as to the anomalies. My point was just that, without that entire tally of all counties being published, the door was left open for the GOP spokespersons to rattle on about "cherry picking."
Thanks again to you, Professor Phillips and group, ModMom, Steven Rosenfeld, FreePress.org, Jesse Jackson, John Conyers, "bernview1", and all the other, individual human beings who have taken the time to reveal all of this.
MSNBC correspondent David Schuster noted on November 15, 2004, that Kerry might pull "within 3000 votes" of Bush after a recount that included more Provisionals--and this was BEFORE the data came out about Warren County and the fake "terrorist alert" at vote-counting time.
This was also before facts came out about power failures in Denver County, Colorado; New Orleans, Louisiana; Iowa; New Mexico and Little Rock, Arkansas.
One scenario I keep wondering about, in regard to a power failure: it would be the perfect cover for rebooting a computer system after having downloaded a software component to alter tabulations-- in order to activate that download. It's an interesting coincidence that all the power failures occurred in states that turned out to be uncomfortably close "battleground" states in the 2004 pre-election polls, or had been Plurality states for Bush or Gore in the 2000 campaign--and that would, in some combination, have presented a threat in the Electoral College to the Bush campaign. This, on top of the suspicious--perhaps--behavior of computer techs in places like Ohio. And, on top of everything else "suspicious" about 2004.

[LightningFlash]

15. Ergo: The problem you describe is there has been no central system..

People have papers on various analyses done of the data, but no central system as to where to archive it.

I have been working with USCountVotes indirectly on this project to verify precinct level data and the anomolies involved. It is a very large project but has since gotten off the ground, so that real forensic study can be done on a level that is prudent.

http://www.uscountvotes.org You should want to contact one of the administrating officials and Bruce O' Dell, he has taken many reports and reflective analysis done by both programmers and scientists. Vote purging on a wide scale was in fact done in the 2004 election.

More on the Triad-county tampering case. http://www.logandaily.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=119029

[Kip Humphrey]

9. Should we be conducting a fund raiser?

And I don't nderstand your second statement, "there was no indication that our findings would be used in ways significant enough to merit all that work". My impression is Richard's analysis is very compelling.

[emlev]

10. reply

I'll respond to your second point first, the statement I made that you didn't understand. It's hours and hours and hours of work to analyze these counties at the precinct level. It's not clear to us that our findings, even if compelling, would lead to any significant action being taken. Nobody seems poised to file lawsuits that would use our evidence. Nobody seems ready to begin the appropriate criminal proceedings. There aren't any indications that we could be heard very loudly. Etc. If someone wants to help me think about how additional findings from Richard's team could be put to significant use, I'd be willing to approach him about resuming the project.

And yes, a fundraiser would make it more likely that we could do it. I was putting in about 50 hours a week (on top of my paid job, parenting, etc.) for a couple of months and didn't get paid anything. I didn't expect to get paid, but I can't sustain that level of work without compenation. Richard put in much more work than I did. He did get paid some money at some point, but I doubt it was even minimum wage if you figure it out hourly. The other members of the team did varying amounts of work, and none was paid.

What do you see as ways the findings would be used?
And thanks for asking both questions.
(Note: please don't start raising money yet, as I haven't even talked to him about if he'd be willing to continue.)

[m.standridge]

17. You note that your immediate group only published 15 of the counties--

yet, you then say, above: "It's not clear to us that our findings, even if compelling, would lead to any significant action being taken. Nobody seems poised to file lawsuits that would use our evidence. Nobody seems ready to begin the appropriate criminal proceedings. . ."
Well, obviously, Professor Phillips "cherry picking" argument presented in his poem "Mister Gore" ( a reference to Vice-President Gore), would be the concern.

Maybe you thought that interested attorneys would assume you'd done all the counties in Ohio because you'd presented those first 15, and would forget to ask about the rest. But I don't think attorneys think like that, especially given the "cherry picking" allegations raised against "Mister" Gore last time. They'd want to know there wasn't any cherry-picking going on, and without those other counties analyzed, and published as such, they weren't going out on a limb in a classically Red state. (Ohio WAS 49.99% for Bush last time, though--a Plurality, probably the closest it had been in recent memory.)

Some, attorneys, by the way, did: e.g., Bob Fitrakis.

Best wishes on getting ALL the stats published now that THEY're ALL correlated or on the way to being correlated.

As you imply, it's a bit late now. That's not your fault. That's the fault of the system--this should be built in, in my view.

[emlev]

18. two separate issues

The valid concern that we could be accused of "cherry-picking" is a separate issue from the insufficient action taken on what we did find. In the paper you mentioned, "Estimated Vote Count in Ohio," Richard Hayes Phillips pulled together the numbers from his studies, as many people were asking him to do.

But whether or not the total numbers we came up with were sufficient to change the election results in Ohio, the individual anomalies we found could and I believe should have resulted in further investigation and probable action. A criminal act is still criminal even if it doesn't change the vote totals enough to sway the election. Beyond criminal prosecutions--for which it's necessary, of course, to find individuals responsible for the crimes--there should have been investigations of electronic voting/tabulation companies, election and campaign officials, in my opinion, possibly leading to canceling of contracts, firings, changes in law, etc.

And yes, attorney Bob Fitrakis--along with the three other attorneys in Moss v. Bush, Arnebeck, Truitt and Peckarsky--did do what they could with our findings. Now that sanctions against them have finally been dropped, perhaps they will do more. I in no way meant to undervalue their brave work when I said that no one seems poised to take further action were we to bring more evidence to light.

Again, I do think it is possible that we could analyze the remaining counties were we to have financial support to be paid for the work.

I appreciate your repeatedly restating your valuing the work that has been done to this point.

[m.standridge]

19. For someone outside of Ohio

the only important issue, in many respects, was whether an election was stolen. Whether persons in Ohio were prosecuted under Ohio law--or under federal law--for individual acts in violation of voting rights laws, was not something we were going to be able to follow up on.
I didn't get the impression that the study was done to serve a criminal investigation of individuals, but to investigate the outcome of the election.
But it doesn't matter what the details were, what focuses were, what mistakes were made or weren't made. The study--all the studies, all the work, all the postings--are slave labor, unpaid work by people like you who have done what they did because they care about the ideal of democratic elections and the hope we can achieve them here in the U.S.
For that, I can't thank you all enough.
I said above that it's too late, but I hope, somehow, that all this effort got through enough, to make the offending parties nervous. These November elections for President we have, can be hopes for democracy, or surprise attacks on it, like 9/11 and 12/7.
We the people seem to often get caught off guard, but we seem able to win out in the end. That's my hope here, too.

[emlev]

20. I respectfully disagree

I agree that the study wasn't done to serve a criminal investigation of individuals. However, thorough investigation of what happened in Ohio--as well as other states--could very well lead to impeachment or other significant consequences.

Besides that, repercussions for the stolen election are crucial even though the wrong candidate has already been installed into office. If one party can steal an election and leave this much evidence and have no repercussions, why wouldn't they steal every election in the future?

So while many of us are working to keep the Republican-controlled electronic voting companies from hijacking future elections, I believe that it is still necessary to pursue repercussions for what happened in the most recent national election.

If I seem grumpy, please do your best not to take it personally. I'm not annoyed with you, just having a bad day.