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 #40: Exact locations of source material [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
Faun Otter Donating Member (156 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. Exact locations of source material
Sorry, I had to go out to have a real life for a few hours. Here are the locations of the figures. If you know how to get spread sheets into this window, please let me know and I'll give you all the data with analysis. Whilst I agree that the Coakley campaign may have sucked, she still got the most votes cast for her. Losing health care because of a fraudulent election is far more than a "wake up call."

In this link, you will find the 2,168 precincts listed by groups in their 350 counting city locations for the 2008 election:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_resul... /

In the next link, you will find the 2010 figures arranged in the same way except that the order has been changed (do not cut and paste as a whole, go line by line to make sure the data is correctly arrayed) Note the 'turnout' figure is not a true turnout figure. If you take the total of COUNTED votes and divide by the SOS sites figure for registered voters, you get this figure except for those locations (primarily Worcester) that had purged their voter rolls.
http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate...

Much of the counting equipment info is on the next link but was confirmed by on the ground people from BBV:
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleclk/clkidx.htm

If you have not been following the discussions of Republican partisans owning the various companies, use Google. ES&S bought Diebold's election division and renamed it. Sequoia is independent. No one owns hand counting, it is done with counters from every candidate observing at all times.

Here is the MA SOS PDF of registrations:
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/st_county_town_en...

I think all the other figures can be derived from these FACTS. If I have missed a source, let me know and I'll post it.

I am also going to run a cross check versus the primary results on a city by city basis. If the hand count (the gold standard of counting and the method used to check scanners are working) doesn't match the scan results for other areas, it raises a red flag. If the discrepancy is great, especially in view of the relative sample sizes being effectively 100% of the measures of that type, it means something was wrong with either the hand counts or the machine counts. Since the hand counts don't go wrong, the machines are the one's that got flipped. Here are the priamry reults for you to do the same analysis if you want:

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elespeif/senatorincongre...
Faun
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