Unofficial Audit of NC Election: Comprehensive Case for Fraud

Sorry for the numbers. This is a long and comprehensive report, so please stay with me -- it offers what I believe to be a strong case that election tampering took place, and I want to carefully establish the facts. I think it may be the first deep examination inside the numbers of a given state -- not just speculation -- but real data collection and questionable results put to the test.

BeFree asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns. Things looked funny. They were way out of sync with the exit polls and no one could believe that Erskine Bowles had lost in the Senate race. The deeper I looked at the figures, the more things began to look disturbing. I downloaded the precinct data and began to pour through it for clues. Then I saw that the absentee vote (which apparently also includes the early voting data) was huge, comprising more than *a million votes* and nearly a full third of the total vote (30%). It offered the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against the strange results of election day. I reasoned with an early vote that large, it is no longer a sample but a benchmark. The nearer one approaches 100%, the more accurate the picture of the whole. At one third, any inconsistencies should even out -- even if more white suburban Republicans voted by absentee (as has been charged in the past with smaller samples) or if the Democratic GOTV pushed our early numbers (as has been assumed for this election). In that respect, I was lucky to have looked at North Carolina -- it's not as crazed as the battleground states and the electorate is nicely split between parties. Any inconsistencies of one side dominating the early vote would have showed up in the data -- they didn't.

With that in mind, I began an informal review of the NC absentee vote. What I found was stunning, and I believe it should have national implications. I have little doubt that we will find the same thing elsewhere by using benchmark absentee data against election day returns. It not only reflects the pattern of exit poll discrepancy we saw throughout the country, but it also makes a compelling case for purposeful tampering with the electronic data. I also think it reveals the three objectives of the Bush re-election campaign: 1) re-election 2) mandate 3) strong Senate majority.

All of the absentee information was buried in the precinct data, hundreds of thousands of lines worth, and had to be pulled out before a comparison could be made. Before we look inside the numbers, note that of the 102 North Carolina counties, 2 have not yet posted absentee data, Catawba and Lee. It may well be in the precinct data but mislabeled or combined in some way. The NC Board of Elections said that both counties have reported, but weren't sure where it was recorded -- I'm awaiting a call back with the information. My estimate based on Catawba's demographic similarity to Davidson would shift the absentee percentages by 0.6% in the Republican's favor, so bear in mind that I've not incorporated it into the data and the consistency is going to be even better than represented. Catawba has a strong Republican base (47,923 to 33,024 registered Republicans to Democrats) and is heavily White (91,141 white to 7619 black registrants). As it is now, the absentee/early vote is almost precisely balanced statistically with the final results. Lee county is much smaller and has 16,391 Democrats to 9149 Republicans (again mostly white) -- it likely would have little impact on the percentages.

Now, here is the absentee data for all the statewide offices, followed by the overall vote, and then the poll-only results (obtained by subtracting the absentee data from the overall figures). The poll-only data is important as it gives us an isolated snapshot of the results that were returned on election day.

GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Mike Easley (DEM): 573,120 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 445,505 (43.2%) -12.4
Other: 12,490 (1.2%)

GOVERNOR (Overall)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,939,137 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,495,032 (42.9%) -12.7
Other: 52,512 (1.5%)

GOVERNOR (Poll only)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,366,017 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,049,527 (42.7%) -12.9
Other: 40,022 (1.6%)

Already we notice that the Democrat, Easley, ran consistently at 55.6% at the polls, in the absentee, and in the poll-only vote. The Republican, Ballantine, actually did very slightly better in the absentee. But this is the overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races (except for Senate and President which I'll hold till last). There is one other important hidden benchmark we can measure here, percentage of turnout. Perhaps the Democrats had more early/absentee voters and the Republicans had a bigger election day turnout? Well, we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina.

To establish the point of consistency, here are the comparisons of all the other statewide races. It's a lot of numbers, most all of them in the same percentile range, but it was important to establish that there was a clear, obvious, and unaccounted diversion from the norm in both the Senate and Presidential races, so I spent a couple of twelve hour days and went through all the statewide numbers including the amendment votes.

MAJOR RACES

*******************
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 561,584 (55.7%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 433,112 (43.0%)
Other: 13,217 (1.3%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Overall)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,888,382 (55.6%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,453,711 (42.8%)
Other: 56,367 (1.6%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Poll Only)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,326,798 (55.5%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,020,599 (42.7%)
Other: 43,150 (1.8%)

*******************
SECRETARY OF STATE (Absentee)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 575,045 (58.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 416,145 (42.0%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Overall)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,911,570 (57.3%)
Jay Rao (REP) 1,423,115 (42.7%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Poll Only)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,336,525 (57.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 1,006,970 (43.0%)

******************
ATTORNEY GENERAL (absentee)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 546,477 (56.7%)
Joe Knott (REP): 417,824 (43.3%)

ATTORNEY GENERAL (overall)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,869,699 (55.6%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,493,061 (44.4%)


ATTORNEY GENERAL (poll-only)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,323,222 (55.2%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,075,237 (44.8%)

******************

OTHER STATEWIDE RACES:


******************
AUDITOR (absentee)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 476,257 (48.6%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 503,250 (51.4%)

AUDITOR (overall)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,662,361 (50.4%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,633,622 (49.6%)

AUDITOR (poll-only)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,186,104 (51.2%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,130,372 (48.8%)

*********************
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (absentee)
Steve Troxler (REP): 478,794 (48.6%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 506,613 (51.4%)

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (overall)
Steve Troxler (REP): 1,665,678 (50.04%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,663,022 (49.96%)

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (poll-only)
Steve Troxler (REP): 1,186,884 (50.7%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,156,409 (49.3%)

**********************
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (absentee)
Jim Long (DEM): 582,238 (58.4%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 414,204 (41.6%)

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (overall)
Jim Long (DEM): 1,934,061 (57.6%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,421,404 (42.4%)

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (poll only)
Jim Long (DEM): 1,351,823 (57.3%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,007,200 (42.7%)

**************************
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (absentee)
Cherie Berry (REP): 475,570 (50.2%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 472,632 (49.8%)

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (overall)
Cherie Berry (REP): 1,721,841 (52.1%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,582,253 (47.9%)

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (poll only)
Cherie Berry (REP): 1,246,271 (52.9%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,109,621 (47.1%)

***********************
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (absentee)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 507,523 (51.7%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 473,991 (48.3%)

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (overall)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,656,092 (50.1%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,646,838 (49.9%)

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (poll only)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,148,569 (49.5%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,172,847 (50.5%)

**************************
TREASURER (absentee)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 546,160 (55.3%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 440,871 (44.7%)

TREASURER (overall)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,812,182 (54.5%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,512,628 (45.5%)

TREASURER (poll only)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,266,022 (54.2%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,071,757 (45.8%)

*******************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (absentee)
FOR: 432,697 (51.7%)
AGAINST: 403,475 (48.3%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (overall)
FOR: 1,494,789 (51.2%)
AGAINST: 1,423,195 (48.8%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (poll only)
FOR: 1,062,092 (51.0%)
AGAINST: 1,019,720 (49.0%)

****************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (absentee)
FOR: 679,434 (78.6%)
AGAINST: 185,101 (21.4%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (overall)
FOR: 2,334,683 (78.0%)
AGAINST: 659,532 (22.0%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (poll only)
FOR: 1,655,249 (77.7%)
AGAINST: 474,431 (22.3%)

****************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (absentee)
FOR: 591,122 (68.7%)
AGAINST: 269,641 (31.3%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (overall)
FOR: 1,984,151 (68.0%)
AGAINST: 933,021 (32.0%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (poll only)
FOR: 1,393,029 (67.7%)
AGAINST: 663,380 (32.3%)

****************************

Of all the statewide races, the only other votes that may raise red flags are the Labor and Agriculture Commissioners, though likely the Catawba data will pull them into line. But none of the races showed anywhere near the unexplained swing of the Senate race.

*************************
SENATOR (absentee)
Richard Burr (REP): 492,166 49.48%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 492,536 49.52% .04
Other: 9,917 1%

SENATOR (overall)
Richard Burr (REP): 1,791,460 51.6%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,632,509 47.0% -4.6
Other: 48,103 1.4%

SENATOR (poll only)
Richard Burr (REP): 1,299,294 52.4%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,139,973 46.0% -6.4
Others: 38,186 1.5%


*************************

WOW. With essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee and the poll, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. That's more than a little alarming and is in itself enough to call into question the legitimacy of the election day vote. North Carolinians in this forum can speak to this, but Bowles is generally well liked. There is absolutely nothing to account for the bizarre drop of support in the electorate by 6.4% between the early voting (mostly the week prior) and election day. But when we compare it to the Presidential race, it is dwarfed by absurdity.

*************************
PRESIDENT (absentee)
George W. Bush: 529,755 52.9%
John F. Kerry: 469,522 46.9% -6.0
Others: 2749 0.2%

PRESIDENT (overall)
George W. Bush: 1,961,188 56.0%
John F. Kerry: 1,525,821 43.6% -12.4
Others: 13,989 0.4%

PRESIDENT (poll only)
George W. Bush: 1,431,433 57.3%
John F. Kerry: 1,056,299 42.3% -15.0
Others: 11,240 0.4%

**************************

So what the heck is going on here??? Kerry was behind by 6 points in the absentee/early voting. The result is consistent with the pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of November 2nd. THE EXIT POLLS TELL US THAT PEOPLE VOTED IDENTICALLY TO THE OTHER THIRD OF THE ELECTORATE. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result. But look at what happens -- a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of NINE POINTS at the election day polls, more than doubling Kerry's overall margin of defeat. A 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day??? Come on -- I'm not that gullible. I honestly don't know how to account for that outside of computer programming -- and if it's there, there's a damn good case with the nationwide inconsistencies between exit polls and results on election day to say that it follows everywhere electronic tabulation goes. My gut tells me that this is why there is a reluctance in Florida and Ohio to push the absentee counting and that the ballots and counts had best be watched very damn closely. They present a paper trail challenge that if understood will provide a key benchmark for election day fraud. I also want to point out that the differential was not there prior to election day -- meaning there either had to be a *date specific* alteration in the software, a hack, or a specific activation just prior to the election. And lastly, it is not only the Presidential election day vote that is spurious -- the close Senate races also bear close scrutiny.

(Also posted to the NC Forum.)

this also includes early voting, though the early voting numbers were much higher in 2004.

Absentee Totals from 2000

Gore 187140 41.7%
Bush 258714 57.66%
Browne 1482
Buchanan 1061
McReynolds 303

Total 448700


These totals don't include curbside and provisional votes, which were relatively small figures.



Final overall totals:

Gore 1,257,692 43%
Bush 1,631,163 56%


http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/y2000elect/stateresults.htm

Thanks for the write up.

Several weeks leading up to the election, polls showed Burr and Bowles tied. Very very tied.

I expected this race to be the one that forced a huge recount. The spread was a bit shocking.

You're right. They were also tied in the absentee vote with a very tiny lead to Bowles. Statistically, it should have stayed that way, plus or minus a point. The 6.4 differential resulting entirely from Nov. 2nd moved so hard against the grain that it's cutting a jagged edge.

and how they correlate to the overall vote.

in fact, let's see how the absentee/early voting numbers match up with other states in this election. of course, we should pick states that aren't in dispute, but did have a significant number of early voters.

we also need to find absentee/early voting records...to what precinct their vote counted, and % of Dems and Reps.

We can't accurately check the precinct totals compared to past years because the early voting numbers were so huge and they are simply lumped in with the absentee ballots. Comparing precincts this year to precincts from 4 years ago gets you nowhere because the numbers are in large part much lower this year with so many early voters.

If you add up votes for various races, you see that the voter totals for state races are around 2.5 million. If you add up the amendments, the totals are approximately 2.8 million. If you add up the senate race in question, the total is about 3.3 million. The totals for the presidential election are around 3.5 million. Does somebody want to explain why there would be 40% more people turning out ONLY to vote for the presidential ticket that didn't vote for any state races (excluding senate and amendments)? Is this even possible with Diebold terminals (to vote for only a few of the offices and not all)?

Though it was likely to be close, I felt that Bowles would be a lock. With an the governors race a done deal and Kerry polling better than most thought he would, it seemed, despite the close Senate race numbers, that things would tend in Bowles' favor.

like a gun

whalerider55

Do you have any links to source your data for both vote results, and polls?

It's all downloadable here:

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/enrs/main_primary.asp?ED=11...

Updates daily, so there's sometimes a slight shift in the numbers but not enough to throw off the percentages.

Data >> Get External Data >> Import Text File >> name of file >> Delimited >> next >> check off comma >> finish

I would never thought to have done that. Maybe it's worth doing with other states.

Believe me, there are dozens of reasons someone can come up to explain this pattern, but boy, does it scream for an investigation.

(I nominated this for the homepage, BTW.)

Can we get some coders on the job to get some automation for a similar analysis of any other data we can get hold of?

I can help, but I haven't compiled any data. Data obtained directly from the source would be best too, that way we could avoid any "transcription" errors that seem to be coming up on the web based data.

Can you run an analysis using Benford's law on the precinct data you have?

Burr beat Erskine Bowles! Never!

In talking to the BoE, can you determine what would trigger an election AUDIT? Have you provided the BoE and/or the Governors office with this? The Atty. General race is a critical one... we need some Dem Atty General that will PROSECUTE people who tamper with elections!!

And, as for the Auditors race....Campbell has been the Auditor in NC for ....well, forever. They've done a recount on that race, and Campbell lost in the recount. I'd like to see an AUDIT OF THE MACHINES!!

Someone needs to impound those damned machines and go over them with a fine-toothed comb.

Same for Ohio. It looks like people voting absentee and/or provisional ballots, may have been voting in more than one county. We have had NOTHING but gerrymandering from the republicans in this election -- from throwing away Dem registrations in GOTV efforts, to extremely strange race statistics for pres. and congress.

It's enough to make you want to SCREAM!! ...and throw things!

The Elections people kept switching me around, putting me on hold, and finally I got a voice mail. I don't think they were intentionally being evasive. I have the impression they are spinning in a thousand directions. I'm not in NC, so it may be best for a native to push with the officials there.

I can. Hope other NC'linians will, too. Was at a meeting last night where the vote was being "spun" as "not much of a problem." This was a Dem wind up for those of us who worked on the ground...ACT/GOTV...it was pretty discouraging in that the people conducting it really didn't want to hear much about the "angst."

I'm more Lefty that most folks here, but our lefties are working on other things...so that's the good news.

Thanks for all your work...I'll pass it along to wherever it might do some real good.

I posted election night that "something is wrong in NC." Posted again after the election...funny numbers, but I can't do statistics it was my observation of watching the polls and being there on election day.

Two Precints are still outstanding...they wouldn't even give us the princinct names last night...it's as if no one knew, or they didn't want to talk about it. I'm a precinct co-chair, they should have shared the info.. I assume those twp pricincts are the ones the articles are coming out about today...you'd think we here would know.

Here's his email: don.wright@ncmail.net

and he said this - (6 of these machines were ES&S BTW. Since then I have been passing along the info on the non-human error and also sent him the four-lines (@ten words) of simple computer code that could have fixed the problem in Carteret.)
---------
There was a malfunction of a voting machine in Carteret County because the company technician failed to set the machine to handle a higher number of votes. It was a simple matter of pressing an additional switch. The other counties you refer to were counties that reported total incorrectly and later corrected the reporting, had a ballot error as to the placement of a candidate that was corrected prior to the election, or miscounted the first attempt absentee votes. All those matters were quickly corrected.

The counties you mentioned use a variety of voting systems, punch cards, optical scan paper ballot, and electronic machines that are used by 93 out of 100 NC counties. The seven remaining counties either use paper ballots that are deposited in a ballot box and must be hand counted or lever machines an obsolete technology that has not been manufactured in this country for decades. The point is, that voting systems and the reports of voting totals work as well as the persons who are manning the machines or producing the report. As with every election, human errors do occur, and we have and will continue to address each error as to causation, and whether procedures should change to help prevent future errors. As the high rate of highway accidents show, the human factor in technology is and will be the primary source of accidents and errors.

No state or county board anywhere in our country can guarantee you an election without human error, but we are committed to that goal. Please be assured that the human errors in the counties you name are corrected and actions taken as to them.
Don Wright
General Counsel


-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:30 PM
To: Don Wright
Subject: North Carolina deserves a re-vote

With more than ten counties reporting electronic voting machine "glitches" North Carolina deserves a revote. Reports are this would cost $3.5 million. Seems a small price to pay for hope. What is that - a buck a person?
If our votes have no validity we have no hope. And without hope, we have NO society. Please don't take our hope away.
----------article follows:
>>
In North Carolina, tens of thousands of votes were affected by multiple problems with electronic voting machines in Carteret, Mecklenburg, Craven, Guilford, Yadkin, Onslow, and Forsyth counties.

Election officials in these counties and with the North Carolina State Board of Election were warned repeatedly that these types of problems COULD and WOULD occur and they dismissed the warning<<
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10133265.htm?1c

Posted on Tue, Nov. 09, 2004

And I'm originally from NC too. I moved a year ago.

Good work, ignatzmouse.

Folks, the absentee/early vote is the barometer, as ingnatzmouse says. If your state has not yet released their early/absentee find out why. Heck, now you know why, now it's just a question of applying the same logic to your state as ignatzmouse has done for NC.

Here in Ohio they haven't even counted the damn things yet!

I tried to pm you, but I can't...

My gut tells me that this is why there is a reluctance in Florida and Ohio to push the absentee counting and that the ballots and counts had best be watched very damn closely. They present a paper trail challenge that if understood will provide a key benchmark for election day fraud.

But then again, the early voters weren't subject to the 'missing explosives story' or the 'scary' OBL video. (I jest, just trying to find out ways for possible Rep spin)

This data is fascinating. Good work!

Thank you, ignatzmouse -- another DU star bursts into the dark sky.

Just magnificent -- precisely (IMO) the type of analysis that should be done everywhere.

Can you do any others? (Hate to be greedy, but....you yourself know how important this is.)


MEGA:

I'd be happy to look at any state where there is sufficient data for investigation. My eyes are going a little blurry and my ass is getting a little sore, but these are critical times that call for blurry eyes and sore asses. I think Jefferson said that...

As a Canadian looking in. It's work like this, by average citizens, that give hope to the world that Americans can and will free themselves from the tyranny that took over your country in 2000.

When are the police, FBI, or any other authorized body going to impound the machines?

I haven't looked at all of Colorado's Numbers yet but

Bush (R)........1,058,040.....Kerry (D).....944,052
Salazar (D).....1,023,803.....Coors (R).....944,520

does this look strange to anyone else?

Oh and good work btw!

Colorado is still a little to the right overall, and Bush won in 2000 as well. Salazer won the senatorial seat because Coors is a doofus and in local elections there was a backlash against the extremely conservative governor.

There might be things worth looking at in CO, but that difference for the presidential and senatorial races was completely expected.

that if you switched the names Bush and Kerry that the numbers would appear more consistent?

Bush winning the presidential race (albeit by less than the final margin), but Salazer winning the senatorial race. This alone is not suspicious. It's exactly what all polls were predicting before election day.

Thanks for the laugh!!

when i saw the returns last week almost spit at my tv -- BULLSHIT!

ballots? Actually one of the clues that the election was fraudulent early on for me, was that for a pres so unpopular without media coverage spin, the huge numbers of absentee ballots was favorable for Kerry, not the incumbent; as was the fact that voters often had to wait hours in abysmal weather conditins. B* doesn't inspire that kind of loyalty.

If other states are as high percentage wise as NC, and the same trends are followed, then it will reinforce the validity of the exit poll data, and a statistical analysis can be done on the differences between absentee and regular vote. Way suspicious.

BTW: I too nominated for front page (not sure if it takes more than 1 vote!)

Great work.

I did notice a trend favoring the Democrats in the absentee ballots. With Bush getting more support than anybody else in the state that is in the GOP, it doesn't surprise me to see the absentee ballots shake out that way.

I just don't know if what you have shown is too much of a bounce. I'd like to see some statistical analysis on these numbers.

Nice work.

A great argument to counter the increasing exit poll bashing

Thank you for all the time it must have taken you to compile all of that information.

From Charlotte Observer

Posted on Tue, Nov. 09, 2004

Glitch could force state to vote again

MICHELLE CROUCH

Staff Writer


More than 4,500 votes irretrievably lost in coastal Carteret County could trigger a new statewide election if the official margin of victory in two Council of State races is close enough, state election officials said Monday.

The problem, which one expert called one of the worst election glitches nationwide, occurred on a machine that wasn't set correctly.

"This is one of the few cases in which the votes were totally lost," said David Dill, founder of the Verified Voting foundation.

The votes, all early ballots, could affect the races for superintendent of public instruction and agriculture commissioner, both too close to call Monday.

Counties will add totals from as many as 75,000 provisional ballots to their returns today. If the final margin in any race is within 4,532 -- the number of lost votes in Carteret -- the losing candidate can file a protest with the N.C. State Board of Election.

It's unclear what would happen in that case. Attorneys Attorneys are studying whether the board could call a new election in Carteret County only, or even ask the disenfranchised voters to vote again. (Local elections officials have their names.)

But state law may not allow that: "The new election shall be held in the entire jurisdiction in which the original election was held," it says. That could mean the whole state.

Gary Bartlett, the state board's executive director, did not know Monday if the state has ever had to redo a statewide election; it hasn't happened in recent memory. A second election would cost between $2.5 million and $3.5 million, he said. <snip>

Your idea (apply the absentee voter returns as a "contol group" for comparison to election day returns from polling stations) is positively brilliant in its simplicity.

This thread merits elevation to homepage status.

Suggestion: a graphical presentation (as part of your analysis) would be very helpful.

You're very right. I don't know if I'm the best person to attempt a graphic on it, but the exit poll graphics that were posted earlier really did make the concept come alive. If someone wants to attempt this, I'd love to see it.

You've done a thorough job here and you have my gratitude. It's clear as day, something's rotten, very, very rotten.

I just downloaded the precinct results & don't see where they mark the ballots as absentee or not. Maybe I'm being stoopid, but how are you distinguishing absentee from poll? Do I have the wrong file?

No. It's there. You have to go line by line and pull it out. It lloks like this:

GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","AUDITOR","Ralph Campbell","DEM",38197,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","AUDITOR","Leslie Merritt","REP",34427,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE","Steve Troxler","REP",39334,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE","Britt Cobb","DEM",34810,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE","Jim Long","DEM",44992,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE","C. Robert Brawley","REP",29359,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","GOVERNOR","Patrick J. Ballantine","REP",31774,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","GOVERNOR","Mike Easley","DEM",44653,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","GOVERNOR","Barbara Howe","LIB",811,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR","Beverly Eaves Perdue","DEM",41728,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR","Jim Snyder","REP",32891,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR","Christopher Cole","LIB",869,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","NC Constitutional Amendment III","For"," ",44727,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","NC Constitutional Amendment III","Against"," ",20362,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","SECRETARY OF STATE","Elaine F. Marshall","DEM",43541,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","SECRETARY OF STATE","Jay Rao","REP",30109,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION","Bill Fletcher","REP",34406,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION","June S. Atkinson","DEM",38594,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","TREASURER","Edward A. Meyer","REP",32652,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","TREASURER","Richard H. Moore","DEM",40409,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000

These are some of the Absentees I compiled for Guilford County for instance. But that is a lot of cut and pasting to get to that point. Each County lists every single ballot race as a group with separate returns for every single precinct in the county. There might be a hundred precincts in a county to sift through before you find the ones marked "ABSENTEE" for a given race. They are usually at the top or the bottom of a given race, though, so you can pan to the start of "GOVERNOR" and if the absentees aren't there, pan to the bottom of "GOVERNOR."

thanks!

man, you did a LOT of work. My imac doesn't even want to handle that much info in one file--will hardly let me scroll thru it.

kudos to you...have you sent this to any media? AAR or Olbermann --?

Thanks for doing this!

Those numbers are bizarre, to say the least.

and Welcome! Every voter deserves to have the points raised in this analysis answered with irrefutable proof. Faster than a speeding bullet-it's a 15 point swing - don't think so!

spelling, spelling, spelling

tips@blackboxvoting.org

this also includes early voting, though the early voting numbers were much higher in 2004.

Absentee Totals from 2000

Gore 187140 41.7%
Bush 258714 57.66%
Browne 1482
Buchanan 1061
McReynolds 303

Total 448700


These totals don't include curbside and provisional votes, which were relatively small figures.



Final overall totals:

Gore 1,257,692 43%
Bush 1,631,163 56%


almost an exact match. this is interesting...

CONTACT ME HERE: I'm hopeful of an answer. They have answered me so far, at least: hammondmv@netzero.com

Rauf is the IT guy: bob.rauf@ncmail.net

Mr. Rauf: This appears to be an SAS program. This is merely an example of some of the online data.

Can you not easily pull out the details of the absentee ballots on a county basis as associated with each office?

thanks for your help.

marsha hammond,phd


GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","AUDITOR","Ralph Campbell","DEM",38197,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","AUDITOR","Leslie Merritt","REP",34427,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/2004","A ","ABSENTEE ","COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE","Steve Troxler","REP",39334,2004-11-11 03:30:13.560000000
GUILFORD,"11/02/

Communicate this information with Bev Harris ASAP!

This certainly looks like criminal fraud. I just checked: the NC AG is Roy Cooper, Democrat.

And it should also be sent to Cam Kerry. Thanks for the great work.

I just emailed the address of this thread to Keith Olberman. This needs to be publicized widely!

Welcome to DU!!

Thanks for the welcome.

Have you contacted anybody with your findings? Keith Olbermann might be interested in your work. kolbermann@msnbc.com

Both Diebold and ES&S are used in NC (ES&S is just as suspicious as Diebold). It would be real interesting to see if all counties have this deviation from the absentee voting, or it varies depending on voting machines.

Here's a link for the voting equipment used in each county.

http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?topic_string...

Aren't the owners of both companies brothers?

See site for FLA discrepancies:

don't see it on your web page, passing lane

hammondmv@netzero.com

Has anyone sent this analysis to BBV or to friends in the media? I think calling it comprehensive case for fraud may be overstating things, but it sure looks odd.
Also is ignatzmouse credentialed? If ignatzmouse has a degree in math or statisitics, it would be more powerful.

Welcome to DU!!

I wonder what explanation they are going to throw on this? Everything else matches almost perfectly. But when it comes to THE TWO MAJOR RACES it clearly defies logic and tilts toward the Republicans!

Maybe when all the irregularities have proven our case of fraud; we can all chip in and buy everyone who has a sore ass a nice vacation!

if nc is a fraud then nevada and new mexico are a fraud..
then bush had his ass handed to him and rove worked his magic

Thank YOU!

This whole issue does not resolve around Florida's panhandle.

NC is on the map. Ohio is another state. Need I go on? Okay... NM, CA, and the list goes on.

Here is something recent on N.C.

N.C. Voting System Has Many Failures.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/s...

Welcome to DU!!

Wow! Really interesting stuff.

I thought it would be interesting to do a Benford's Law analysis of the election. It's a law regarding the first digits in natural sets of numbers that is used to find accounting & tax fraud. I've done an analysis of all the states. Here is the web page if you are interested:

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~pagem/Benford /

M. Page
Dept. of Physics
UCSB

This is great work! Thank you for doing it. I read your whole article and read the graphs, but I don't understand what the conclusions are. I'm one of those right-brain dominant fine arts people. Also the 2nd big chart on the main paper didn't post properly.

That one image should work now.

Benford's law is not used necessarily to prove fraud, but rather to "flag" suspicious looking numbers. So certainly some of the states match the law better than others. I now have a list of the most "suspicious" states, that is, the states that differ from the Law the most, available on the website.

This is the average amount (in standard deviation units) that the percentages from each state differ from theory. (I report in standard deviation units, to remove the effect of number of counties.)

The 12 "worst" states (Iowa being the worst of the worst):

PA 1.0369
MS 1.0552
IL 1.0702
KY 1.0735
MO 1.0853
MI 1.1072
GA 1.1562
IN 1.2083
VT 1.2400
TX 1.2482
ME 1.2600
IA 1.6296 (This state is WAY off - just look at the graphs too!)

I would like to do a similar analysis of NC, for both the absentee and regular ballots. But to do that I would need county-by-county totals of both the absentee and non-absentee votes. Does anyone know where I could get these?

I know I'm not surprised. I live here and the results that came out of here do not reflect what I've seen. I'd love to see someone dig into DeLay's results some day.

Nice job, gradstudent! Welcome to DU!

But I'm not good with reading this data. Could you explain what your results indicate?