You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #46: : Let’s summarize an analysis of the facts. Warning: slow load. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. : Let’s summarize an analysis of the facts. Warning: slow load.
Edited on Fri Aug-21-09 04:05 PM by WillE


Before getting to your points, this is a good time to review some of the facts in this thread for new viewers:

Kerry led the pre-election polls by 51-48%
All pollsters assumed that as the challenger, he would win the majority of the undecided vote.
Gallup allocated 90% of the late undecided vote to Kerry
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag

Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (114,000 respondents) by 52-47%
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag

Gore won the NY recorded vote by 60-35-5%.
Approximately 75% of returning Nader voters broke for Kerry.
All things being equal, Kerry should have won by 63-36%.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

According to Edison-Mitofsky lever machines had the highest WPE (11%) of any machine type.
Kerry had 58% of the Election Day lever vote.
Paper ballots had the lowest (2%) WPE.
Kerry had 66% of the late PAPER BALLOT vote.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag

Kerry won 57-62% of new voters nationwide, depending on the national exit poll timeline.
There were 22-24 million new voters.
There were 1 million new voters in NY.
Kerry probably won 67-72% of new NY voters since he did 10% better in NY than nationally.
That means he had an approximate 400,000 margin in new NY voters over Bush.
Add that to his 50,000 margin in returning Nader voters, he had a 450,000 vote margin going in.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

The 12:22am national exit poll indicated that 10% of returning Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry .
Only 8% of returning Gore voters defected to Bush.
In the implausible scenario that Kerry won 67% of new voters but just 8% of returning Bush voters (he won 10% nationally) Bush needed to win 15% of returning Gore voters In order to match the NY recorded vote. Assumptions are 1) a 5% voter mortality rate, 2) equal 98% Bush/Gore voter turnout , 3) Kerry and Gore had 75% of the uncounted votes total votes cast.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

State and national exit polls indicated that Kerry had a 3-6% margin improvement over Gore.
So how did his recorded NY margin decline 7%?
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

Kerry won the NY Best GEO exit poll by 65-34%.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

Kerry won the last 500,000 recorded paper ballot votes by 66-33%.
He won Election Day lever machine recorded vote by 58-41%.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

An analysis of changes in NY county vote share from 2000 to 2004 shows a very strong (0.61) correlation between Bush’s percentage gain in county votes and county-size as measured by the recorded vote.
Kerry’s correlation was just 0.07.
Image
This is strong evidence that the New York Urban Legend that Bush won by increasing his share from 2000 in Urban areas a myth.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

The preliminary and Final National Exit Poll showed that Bush’s Urban recorded vote share increased by 9% over 2000 while his rural share declined by 3%.
Image
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

The EIRS showed 19 NY levers stuck on Bush, none on Kerry.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there was no recanvassing of the 2004 NY presidential vote.
Why would they? No one asked for it to be done.
After all, Kerry won the state by 1.3 million votes.
What does it prove? Nothing. But it’s a VERY red flag.

Bill, is this analysis a “waste” of your time?
Is considering ALL the evidence a waste of time?

OK, now on to your post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You refute the point that NYers have tried and failed to get HCPBs with some post about more software? I would think you'd at least come up with the Schultz' case, but you are obviously not well-informed about any such efforts.
-----

Why have they failed? Have you EVER campaigned for HCPB with counts posted at the precinct for public view and uploaded to the Internet for online view and data redundancy as well as for the tabulation of county totals by an OPEN SOURCE SYSTEM?

2
Now, the reason there can't be stuffing of votes is because the lever tallies are checked IMMEDIATELY after the polls close, before the machines are moved, when there is absolutely NO opportunity for tampering. There are too many observers present when this happens; it's too soon after the polls close; no election inspectors may leave until the canvass is completed; they must be bi-partisan; and observers are allowed from every party on the ballot.
-----
What if the tampering was done before Election Day? Who are the observers? Who verifies the count? So how did they miss Obama’s votes? Why were there more lever totals ending in 99 than would normally be expected statistically?

The elites want to get rid of paper ballots and replace them with Levers in 1892. Could it be for the same reason that they don’t want paper ballots today – because they are against full transparency, not for it as they claim? Why is it that election activists are fighting for paper ballots but Elites consider them anathema? Is it the cost? Two or three volunteer counters per precinct? Hell, you have volunteer poll workers, why not two counters?

To keep it simple and lower the cost, count the ballots manually for president, senate and congress. Do the rest on optical scanners.

This is an American Heritage:article on levers.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/20...
Voting machines are another area where New York State lags behind. People from the rest of the country are often incredulous to learn that New Yorkers still use the old-fashioned lever-operated models, which do not differ greatly from the first successful voting machines, introduced in Lockport, New York, in 1892. In return, New Yorkers, after seeing the mischief that has occurred with other types of voting technology, wonder what exactly is supposed to be wrong with the sturdy lever machines. A session at the recent annual meeting of the Society for the History of Technology—held in Las Vegas, where everything is up-to-date except the elevator music—addressed the history behind voting machines, lever and otherwise, with some potential lessons for today.
The opening speaker, Roy G. Saltman, author of The History and Politics of Voting Integrity (Palgrave, 2006), discussed how voting machinery developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and pointed out some flaws with lever machines, which were the first successful type. For example, they are fairly easy to tamper with, the upper rows can be too high for short people to reach, and crowded ballots often result in questions and propositions being shunted to a corner and overlooked.
And they have more subtle flaws. On lever machines, casting a vote trips the rotary mechanical counter that keeps a running tally. If the counter is at 099, the next vote will have to turn three separate wheels to advance it to 100, and some voters simply don’t have the strength for that. Saltman said one election official has told him that he sees many more vote totals ending in 99 than would be expected statistically.
Yet the main purported problem with lever machines is that they do not create a “paper trail”—a marked ballot for each individual vote that can be used to check the total. As Bryan Pfaffenberger, of the University of Virginia, explained, similar concerns were responsible for New York City’s delay in adopting voting machines long after their use was required by state law.

Tammany Hall, the city’s Democratic machine, resisted the uniform ballot design, which they felt removed autonomy from local political bosses. They also feared that the voting machines could be rigged. When the machines were finally adopted, in 1926, the shortfall in Democratic votes was much less than had been feared, and Tammany accepted the

3
The NYT did NOT review anything. They simply copied some election-night tallies before they were checked and corrected by the recanvass, which would have happened anyway -- with or without their sloppy reportage. That's in the Election Law and there are many thousands of observers in the state who see to it that it happens. Many of them worked for Obama and Kerry.
----

STATEMENT ON THE PRELIMINARY NATURE OF ELECTION NIGHT TALLIES

The preliminary election “results” reported on election night are just that – preliminary. New York State Election Law requires a complete recanvass of all voting machines and the counting of all valid absentee, affidavit, and military ballots before the election results can be certified. The preliminary election results are produced by a combination of poll workers manually recording the results and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) collecting materials containing these results, compiling them, and entering the information into its computer system for tabulation.

------
But what if the recorded machine results are contaminated (e.g. levers stuck at 99 or zero votes)? Are there any redundant paper ballots to prove it? What if the poll workers incorrectly transcribe the results?
-------

After the polls close on election night, more than 30,000 poll workers transcribe the number of votes for each candidate from the face of the voting machines onto Return of Canvass forms. These poll workers then hand the Return of Canvass sheets to the NYPD Officer assigned to that polling location. The candidates and/or members of their respective campaigns are permitted by law to assign poll watchers to observe and record the preliminary results (see NYS Election Law, Section 9-126).

------
Wouldn’t it be preferable to have the results posted at the precinct with the paper ballots secured in a lockbox?
------

Once collected, the NYPD Officer delivers the Return of Canvass sheets to his or her police precinct to be transcribed into its computer system by civilian employees of the NYPD. The computer records are then transmitted to the Associated Press and a copy of each Return of Canvass form is delivered to its office at 55 Washington Street in Brooklyn. The Associated Press then shares the preliminary results with its colleagues in the news media. These preliminary results, however, do not include thousands of absentee, affidavit, and military ballots (see NYS Election Law, Section 9-102),

-----
But Bill, I thought you were vehemently opposed to the use of any computer system?
----

New York State has one of the most meticulous recanvass procedures in the country. State Election Law requires all Board of Elections to recanvass every voting machine used within 15 days of the election. During this process, bipartisan teams of Board Employees record the results for tabulation. As an extra layer of oversight, representatives of all the campaigns are notified of the recanvass schedule and invited to monitor the official recanvass and ensure its accuracy. The absentee and affidavit ballots are then opened and tabulated after staff review. The campaigns are once again invited to monitor the opening and counting of these paper ballots (see NYS Election Law, Section 9-208).
-----
But what if there is a discrepancy to the initial count? How is it resolved? Representatives are invited but how many actually show up? Kerry won NY by 1.35 million recorded votes. Who was going to question it? They would be laughed at. And Karl Rove would laugh the loudest.
-----

4
Officials confirmed the discrepancies and corrected them. That's how it works. A formal review is done after every election. As I said, you seem to know nothing about NY Election Law, lever procedures, etc., or else you would know these things.
-----

When did they correct them? Was it days or weeks later?
What makes you think that they would have corrected them in 2004 or 2006 – especially if the anomalies were never reported in the media ?Who would have reported it?

5
Maybe you should get out of your exit-poll arm chair, take a trip to a warehouse, see how the lever machines are set up, and learn about such things before going off half-cocked about some polls that were never designed to find the kind of stuff you're looking for in the first place.
-----

The GEO and composite NY exit poll results stand by themselves. But you would prefer that they just go away. Just saying that the exit polls were not designed to detect fraud is laughable. That canard was dismissed right after it was first offered with all the other lame excuses immediately after the election. Completely irrelevant. Like saying kitchen knives are not designed to kill. But they do.

The unwashed state and national exit polls strongly suggested fraud; the final polls proved it when they were FORCED TO MATCH a bogus recorded vote using impossible returning PHANTOM Bush voters and implausible vote shares.

Face it. The exit polls were a STRONG INDICATOR OF FRAUD IN NY – just like they were in every other Blue and battleground state. The 12:40am Composite NY exit poll was adjusted for vote counts AND pre-election polls and STILL had Kerry winning with 64%.

The Final NY Exit Poll that was posted a few hours later was FORCED TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE! How did Kerry drop 6% from the Composite to the Final? Easy. They changed the vote shares and weights to MATCH THE VOTE. NOT KOSHER!

I posed these questions up-thread. I know that Mr. Other won’t approve but I must also ask them of you:
1) Do you believe that Bush won the national election fairly (i.e. he won the TRUE Vote)?
2) Or do you believe the election was stolen (Kerry won the TRUE vote)?

If it’s 1) I can understand why you want to keep the levers. Because you believe that he won the election fairly (i.e. there was virtually no fraud).

If it’s 2) that’s equivalent to saying the state and national exit polls were essentially correct, since they had Kerry winning with 51-52% (a 4% margin). But if they were correct, how could Kerry’s NY exit poll share have been 64% and his recorded share just 58.4%?

Gore’s recorded national margin was just 0.5% yet he won NY by 25% (60-35%). How could Kerry have a 4% bigger national margin than Gore and yet at the same time have his NY margin reduced by 7% (to 18%)? It doesn’t make any sense. You would expect that Kerry’s margin would be at least 4% higher tthan Gore’s.

In other words, you would expect that Kerry won NY by his 64-35% EXIT POLL margin! Or maybe by his 66-33% NY paper ballot margin.
Wouldn’t you? Do the math, Bill. Heck , it’s just a combination of 3rd grade arithmetic and common poly-sci sense.

Based on your faith that the NY vote was correct (i.e. the Levers were close to perfect) one would naturally assume that you also believe that Bush won the election fairly. Democrats reading this thread would be VERY disappointed to hear YOU say that. Well, at least it would be a direct answer.

But I’m sure that you agree that Bush stole it, based on all the evidence that has been made available since 2004. Or am I wrong about that?


6
In case you haven't noticed, I don't care too much about polls. I think they're mostly a waste of time when there are ways to check actual vote counts or the operation of voting systems. But I do seem to remember reading that POST-ELECTION telephone polls were closer to the vote counts than the exit polls were. Oregon is the poster child for this, but you will find lower WPEs in ALL the absentee precincts on average I think. So don't go telling me about pre-election telephone polls!
-----

Where did you read that?

Mostly a waste of time? You just don’t get it, do you? Were the exit polls a waste of time in 2004 when they were the FIRST indication that the election was stolen? Would this forum even exist today were it not for the original analysts like Freeman, Baiman, Simon, Palast and TIA?

What data would YOU be using to question the recorded vote results? You don’t believe that the exit polls are indicators of fraud and mock those who do. Since you believe the recorded vote, you must also believe that the Final NY exit poll that was forced to match the recorded vote is correct. And you call yourself an election activist?

Bill, you are not an election activist if you are firm believer in the status quo. You hear no evil, see no evil and fail to consider all of the evidence. Very unscientific. Very much a Luddite.

I’ve noticed that you don’t “care” about polls. Especially since they upset your faith-based “belief” that Kerry won by the recorded 58.5-40.2%, even though Gore won by 60-35% and Nader voters broke 3-1 for Kerry. In other words, although returning Nader ADDED 2% to Kerry’s margin, his adjusted NET recorded margin DECLINED by 7% - even though he won the late 500,000 paper ballots by 66-33%!

Bill, it’s not rocket science. It’s simple math vs. simple faith.

Now, which post-election telephone polls are you referring to? Just to set the record straight, YOU were the one who brought up the PRE-ELECTION POLLS in the first place, claiming that they matched the vote counts. On the contrary, the pre-election aggregate state and national exit polls (adjusted for undecided voter allocation) matched the state and national exit polls – before the FINAL EXIT WAS FORCED TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE. Got that yet?

You “think“ that you will find lower WPEs in all the absentee precincts? That is disingenuous, worthy of the Other guy. Thinking is not good enough. Show us the data.

You know that unadjusted precinct exit poll data is NOT FOR PUBLIC VIEWING don’t you? Why don’t you call CNN or the NY Times? They have it.

It’s like those golden orange real estate leads in “Glengarry Glen Ross”. As Alec Baldwin told salesman Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Ed Harris and Alan Arkin: “They’re GOLD; but you can’t have them. They’re for closers”

But the precinct data is not available to ANYONE, including those activists who have wanted to prove election fraud. Well, except for Ohio. And both Richard Hayes Phillips and USCV proved THAT election was stolen for the electoral votes. New York was not stolen for the electoral votes; it was rigged to provide Bush with 750,000 of his 3.0 million vote “mandate”.

All we have is 2000/2004 recorded NY county data – and that’s because TIA did the work of creating the database from Election Day recorded data provided on the Leip site. And a statistical correlation of the recorded data proves that the Bush Urban Legend was just a myth after all.

Here’s the graph that proves it. Your mentor Mr. Other called it “crappy, while also claiming that he did not understand it. Talk about getting hoisted on your own petard!
Mr. Other could not refute the strong 0.61 correlation between Bush percentage vote change from 2000 and county vote size – a sure sign of vote padding and suppression. (there was near zero correlation for Kerry). Can you?

I’m sure YOU will understand it, Bill. Then you can educate Mr. Hand so that he can present it in his upcoming Poly-Sci class.

Image

So far the only data I have seen regarding late PAPER absentee/provisionals are the LATE PAPER ballot votes And Kerry had 66% –MATCHING HIS 65% BEST GEO EXIT POLL SHARE. It’s a 2% WPE! You have just made my point!

In all of your Lever postings, have you EVER mentioned that FACT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC