Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Suspicion of Election Fraud: 2004 WA State Governor and Presidential Race

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:18 PM
Original message
Suspicion of Election Fraud: 2004 WA State Governor and Presidential Race
Preface:

'Time for Change' assisted me with this analysis, concurs with my conclusions, and will be available to help me answer questions about it. We filed this report and supporting material to individuals in WA State this morning. If anyone reading this report would like a copy of the document and supporting materials, either pm me or 'Time for Change' and we will email them to you. Also, if anyone has direct contact with Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards or their associates, please give them the information.

Report:

Suspicion of Election Fraud in the 2004 Washington State Governor and Presidential Race the role of electronic voting devices in Snohomish and Yakima Counties.

I. Comparison of absentee vs. election day voting in Snohomish and Yakima Counties

The hypothesis is that on election day, in two WA State counties, Snohomish and Yakima, election fraud was accomplished in the WA State Governor and Presidential race via the use of "blackbox" voting devices that could readily be manipulated to generate results contrary to voter intent.

Let us now evaluate absentee compared to the election-day numbers for Yakima and Snohomish Counties. Focus on the fact that for election-day those two counties used electronic devices for which no paper trail, i.e., output record amenable to standard auditing, is available. Also note that had WA State not conducted a hand count of all ballots, excepting the election-day input to the electronic voting devices in Snohomish and Yakima counties, we would have been denied an opportunity to account for what may have happened.

In YAKIMA County, as noted in the attached document (Ref 1. YakimaCounty04General.pdf1) that provides absentee and election-day totals we observe the following:

Pres/VP -- Kerry 28,474; Bush 43,352 (others 485)

Governor -- Gregoire 24,735; Rossi 46,044 (other 1351)

Thus:

Kerry got 0.77% more in absentee ballots than on election-day

Gregoire got 3.11% more in absentee ballots than on election-day

Now, lets compare that with SNOHOMISH County Pres/VP results (ref.2):

Kerry got 54.8% of the absentee votes and 51.8% of the election-day votes -- +3.0% for absentee

Then, if we look at the following two documents detailing recount results for Governor:

http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Aud...

http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/aud...

We learn from the first document (the manual count of absentee votes) that the results are:

Gregoire -- 97,044; Rossi -- 95,228

We learn from the second document (the "machine recount" of the DRE tapes) that the results are:

Gregoire -- 42,145; and Rossi -- 50,400

So, in Snohomish County, Gregoire got 50.5% of the absentee votes and 45.5% of election-day votes -- +5.0% for absentee

II. Pre-election poll and exit poll results

Going into 2 Nov 2004, a range of projections reported on 28 Oct 2004 in the Seattle-PI, had Gregoire leading Rossi by anywhere from 2% to 5%; but, as noted in the article, the Rossi campaign polls showed a "dead heat" or Rossi actually leading by 1%.

For reference check:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/197137_govsenate28....

URLs for the exit polls for Pres/VP and Governor, as available on CNNs site (please note the time of these exit polls and be assured that we are aware of how much adjusting appeared to happen at the CNN site between 4pm EST 2 Nov 2004 and 2am EST 3 Nov 2004):

Governor:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/...

Pres/VP:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/...

Similarly, John Kerry received a smaller percent of the votes than would be expected from the Washington State exit poll as documented by Alastair Thomson and Ed Shalom (ref. 3).

And, a rather revealing quote is worthy of much thought and action:

"In Snohomish County, first in the state to adopt new touch-screen voting, officials apparently solved the September primary breakdown of dozens of machines that had jammed. But on Nov. 2, voters reported that the touch screens were recording votes for the wrong candidate."
From: http://www.topangaonline.com/wboard/messages/144.html

Furthermore, a visit to voteprotect.org followed by a check on WA State Snohomish County reveals incident reports of the type reported elsewhere throughout the Nation on 2 Nov 2004 with e-vote devices:

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapCounty&...

III. Conclusion

In the Washington State Governors race and Presidential race, the Democratic candidate performed substantially better in pre-election polls compared to official vote tally; and, for the Presidential race, the Democratic candidate (per ref 3) showed a distinctly better exit poll than official vote tally. In addition, for the two counties (Snohomish and Yakima) which used electronic voting without paper trails (black box voting), the Democratic candidates in both races performed considerably better in the absentee voting (which was counted by hand and therefore not susceptible to electronic manipulation) than in the electronic black box voting held on election day. When these facts are added to the fact that the software used to count the electronic vote is secret and not available to public viewing, serious suspicions are aroused about the integrity of the election in Snohomish and Yakima Counties, which demand further investigation.

IV. Recommendations

For comparative purposes, it is essential to have absentee vs. election-day tallies for both Pres/VP and Governor from the other WA State Counties (note: to date the only two WA State counties that have provided, via their web sites, a breakout of absentee vs. election-day are, rather ironically, Snohomish and Yakima).

We urge immediate action to impound all e-voting devices from Snohomish and Yakima County.

A survey of the Snohomish County Spread Sheet (ref 2) also points to specific precincts whose e-voting devices should be extensively investigated. In addition, under-oath testimony should be obtained from any executive, technician, election board employee or others regarding the programming of those devices. Specific precincts of concern are based on a specific divergence pattern noted in numerous Snohomish precincts.

The pattern example is:

Pipeline precinct
Election-day: Kerry, 36; Bush, 74
Absentee: Kerry, 123; Bush 99

A non-exhaustive list of Snohomish precincts that match the pattern includes:

Peterson, Osborne, Olympus, Oaks, Monroe6, Monroe3, Misty, Mc Rae, Marysville13, 11, 10, 8, 7, 5, 3; Martha Lake, Marks, Mapplewood, Mann, Maltby, Machias, Lynwood 21, Loma, Locust, Larimer, Larch, Lakeview, Lake Stevens 7, Kayak, Jordan, Huckleberry, Hiltons Lake, Hillside, Hillcrest, Hazel, Haines, Greenwood, Granite Falls 1, 2; Gold Bar 1, 2; Glenwood, Getchell, Four Corners, Fern Everett 76, 72, 68, 57, 54, 51, 50, 48, 43, 42, 30, 29, 28, 27, 6; Estates, Edmonds 45, 39, 28, 21; Edgecomb, Ebey, Dubuque, Dry Creek, Davies, Crest, Centeninial, Brookwood, Brook, Brier7,1; Brandi, Bothell 37, 34; Boeing, Ash, Arnot, Arlington 12, 9, 6, 4, 3, 2; Anderson, Alma

As noted, the Yakima summary available on-line does not provide a precinct break-out of absentee vs. election-day.

IV. References

1. YakimaCounty04General.pdf (attached in filed report)
http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/vote/english/Returns/04Gener...

2. SnohomishTallyAbsED2004.xls (attached in filed report)
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/auditor/elections/1104sov...

3. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00270.htm
(attached in filed report)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. O.K. Rossi you want another Election,, Paper ballot this time Buster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. You Betcha!
He only disliked the Washington State system when it worked against him! Where was his call for a statewide recount when Democrats had to scramble to come up with $1 million for a second recount? A sizable chunk of that recount money came from grassroots contributions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sometimes people should be very careful for what they ask:
"No concession," said Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane. "There are just too many questions, too many problems. As of right now, we don't believe this has been a proper or well-run election."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?c...

Hmmmm.

Peace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yeah, well no duh, Lane. We 'Liburals' have been trying to tell you
people this for a month!

"There are just too many questions, too many problems. As of right now, we don't believe this has been a proper or well-run election."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Some folk are just slllllllloooooowwwwwwww learners ;-)
But, I'm lovin the sound of "REVOTE"!!!

Let's hear it for REVOTE -- everywhere, all the time, everyone -- REVOTE, REVOTE......

Oh, so sweet irony that the Repubs in WA state are going to be the first domino to fall :evilgrin:

Peace.

"It's 7 Jan 2005; does anyone know where Bush is?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dream of the Flood Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. How about a trade?
Rossi in WA and Kerry in DC! I mean really. They're opening a can of worms here--even some FReepers are recognising that this may not be the wisest of moves, that Rossi should just let it go and build for his next run. Isn't it funny that we are all tin-foil hatters until they suspect it happened to them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
39. He's got that part right about not being a proper well-run election.
I've seen those fishy figures too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idiosyncratic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thank you for posting this.
Very, very interesting reading!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thank you for your time & effect in reviewing the date, Green Party
is probably a good place to get this information in, I know of a Green Working in Iowa who I am sure would love to pass on any information to David Cobb of the Green Party.

I have sent it off, I hope to hear back by email.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thank you very much!! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharman Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
8. Question
I was under the impression that Wash State had a complete paper trail, which was exhaustively hand-counted for the governor's race. Are you saying that two counties voted paperless blackbox?

Presumably, then, these two counties could not be recounted?

I greatly appreciate this analysis, it certainly does look odd. The precincts you point out would be prime candidates for a post-election canvass. I am not the only one to suggest this: the voters are still there, why not just ask them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Snohomish and Yakima counties used e-vote devices.
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 01:42 AM by understandinglife
Big problem come recount time because all the options were obviously inadequate. At one point they discussed printing thousands of .pdf files, one for each 'ballot.' In the end, they agreed to the following:

http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/aud...

Pertinent text from that .pdf document:

"Snohomish County tallied 96,231 electronic ballots in the general election. Yakima County tallied 16,869 ballots in that election.

Under the agreement, all parties have agreed to procedures to be used for tallying electronic ballots in the statewide manual recount.

Under the agreement, Yakima and Snohomish counties will retrieve the cumulative results from the electronic ballots and enter them into a spread sheet for each voting device, then total those results and compare them with the machine recount.

All parties agree that these procedures are the equivalent of a manual recount of the electronic voting devices.

The process of entering data from the cumulative results tapes will be done openly and with the full participation of observers in Yakima and Snohomish Counties."

It is a pitiful acquiescence to the reality that all they were 'counting' was vapor; the actual intent and action of each voter was unknown because an accounting of each vote was not provided to each voter during the act of voting -- they did not receive a receipt that could perpetually be checked against whatever was in the tally database (sorta like you depositing $10000 at your ATM, not having a transaction record printed and no mechanism for verifying that exact transaction at a later time -- not a bank most would ever do business).

And, we know from incident reports that folk in Snohomish experienced those remarkably unidirectional flip/flops.

"Never again" along with "Halt, investigate, REVOTE" should become persistent mantra in our American franchise of democracy 'civics classes.'

Thank you for your comments.

Peace.

"Its 7 Jan 2005: do you know who your president is?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyPriest Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Revote -- on paper ballots!
Until the machine issues are settled in this country -- which is probably going to take us a while -- no one will trust an election on machines. Or, ahem, no honest folks will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I fully agree
That's why you requested the impounding and examination of their voting machines. Hopefully your request will be acknowledged. What do you think the chances of that are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
43. Try this angle
The evote is one of the machines in Texas that defaulted to Bush. I want to know why the machine did that in Texas, and not in Snohomish or Yakima. What is the difference in programming that caused the same machine to function completely differently? Seems to me we've got to start asking those kinds of questions to make a legal justification for getting to the code.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. One explanation could be
I voted absentee because I was concerned about fraud of electronic voting. It may be that many democrats voted absentee for the same reason. Therefore Absentee ballots would lean democratic.

The absentee voter ballots may not therefore represent a true cross section of the electorate.

This does not mean that fraud did not happen but it might explain the difference between absentee and electronic results.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Perhaps. But, if you look at the results in other races, in those...
...two counties, you will see reason(s) to doubt that explanation.

What we want to do now is avoid further speculation and simply force an investigation of what happened. Interestingly, Rossi's demand for a revote may, ironically, lead to just such an investigation.

Thank you for your insights.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. It seems important to present the results for the non-suspect
counties in light of Skids comments below...

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. As soon as we get the info, we will. That is why we recommended..
...to those whom we sent the initial report (folk who have more than ready access to precinct by precinct, absentee and election day data for every WA State county) that they do just that.

Totally agree with you and Skids.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. You are correct
As Understandinglife's message says, the facts in his report raise a suspicion but do not provide anything like definitive evidence. As you point out, there are other possibilities. One way to get a better handle on this would be to look at patterns of absentee vs. election day voting in counties that have paper trails, and compare them with Yakima and Snohomish Counties. That is one of the recommendations in the report.

But I think that the suspicion alone should be sufficient to request impounding and examination of the secret voting machines. That could provide the key -- to Washington State and a lot more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Precisely, TfC. And, that's why we are pushing hard...
....to get the leadership in the State to focus on those e-vote devices.

A plea to everyone reading this thread -- if you want to do something specific and relevant; call your Senators and Congressional representatives and the media and urge them to focus on WA State; the reasons to do so are compelling and the next actions are obvious.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
16. Umm, you really need to do a "control" group.
King county does publish Absentee votes separately, in fact, even on a precinct level. And in fact, Democrats (at least in King County) did perfarm better in absentee than in the booths.

I've been trying to get the time together to finish an analysis of King County absentee versus booth voting, and will hopefully do so before the end of the week. So I won't post images, since I have to get them to a size that won't kill my upload capability, but charts are easy enough (note justices are assigned a party though they run as non-partisan candidates, and the Sebring/Sanders race crossed over party boundaries a lot.)

Republican County-wide -- proportion of total votes received through early-absentee:

Attorney General: Rob McKenna 0.64
Commissioner of Public Lands: Doug Sutherland 0.66
Governor: Dino Rossi 0.64
Insurance Commissioner: John Adams 0.64
Lieutenant Governor: Jim Wiest 0.65
Pres/Vice Pres: Bush / Cheney 0.65
Secretary of State: Sam Reed 0.64
St Supr Crt Pos No 1: Jim Johnson 0.66
St Supr Crt Pos No 6: Richard B. Sanders 0.69
State Auditor: Will Baker 0.63
State Treasurer: Oscar S. Lewis 0.64
United States Senator: George R. Nethercutt 0.64


Democrat County-wide -- proportion of total votes received through early-absentee:


Attorney General: Deborah Senn 0.66
Commissioner of Public Lands: Mike Cooper 0.65
Governor: Christine Gregoire 0.66
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Kreidler 0.66
Lieutenant Governor: Brad Owen 0.66
Pres/Vice Pres: Kerry / Edwards 0.65
Secretary of State: Laura Ruderman 0.66
St Supr Crt Pos No 1: Mary Kay Becker 0.67
St Supr Crt Pos No 5: Barbara Madsen 0.67
St Supr Crt Pos No 6: Terry Sebring 0.64
State Auditor: Brian Sonntag 0.66
State Treasurer: Mike Murphy 0.66
United States Senator: Patty Murray 0.65


Now, granted, the applicability to heavily democratic King county to more Republican counties is not established, but before presenting this as "evidence" a control group of counties should be done. Keep looking for data. The Deibold opscan counties definitely have separate absentee data readily available, if they choose to publish it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Agree about 'control' groups; that is why....
....we note the need to have access to the details of absentee vs election day, precinct by precinct data, that we have been able to get from Snohomish county. I have not been able to get that data for any other county. Yakima provides summary data which has been helpful. If you have links to those resources, please do post them. It would be much appreciated.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Have found a new link on the King County web site...
....and will try to convert to spread sheet. If not able to convert, it will be almost impossible to analyze. Will post info if it can be converted.

Link:

http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/canvass/2004/nov/Recou...

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnGideon Donating Member (492 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. understandinglife, Please Look In Your Message Box n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Investigation quite justified
I've been investigating Snohomish and Yakima counties for many days now, and have done 2 tv shows and a radio show on it. Dr. Hoffman and I will be coming out with an analysis within a few days; there's a lot more that we've collected, and suspicion is justified amply in my opinion, though more in Snohomish county than Yakima (though that may be a function of my primary focus being on Snohomish).

Any interested in working on snohomish call me on my cell
425-422-1387

Land Shark
aka Paul Lehto, Business Law Attorney
Consumer and Business Fraud Cases
Member, Washington State Bar Association
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. It's been good talking with you Paul; here's a bit more on Yakima...
....hopefully, when we have the precinct spreads on Yakima, we'll be able to look for the patterns already detected for precincts in Yakima.

For Yakima:

Kerry received ~ 0.77% more absentee (AB) than election-day (ED) votes.
AB -- Kerry 20205; Bush 30463; Total 51432 (includes others)
ED -- Kerry 8269; Bush 12889; Total 21473 (includes others)

Murray received ~ 1.5% more absentee than election-day votes
AB -- Murray 22300; Nethercut 27530; Total 50993 (includes others)
ED -- Murray 9072; Nethercut 11785; Total 21247 (includes others)

Matheson received ~ 1.8% LESS absentee than election-day votes
AB -- Matheson 21320; Hastings 29367; Total 50747 (includes others)
ED -- Matheson 9234; Hastings 11727; Total 20991 (includes others)

Gregoire received ~ 3.1% more absentee than election-day votes
AB -- Gregoire 17939; Rossi 32056; Total 50995 (includes others)
ED -- Gregoire 6796; Rossi 13988; Total 21193 (includes others)

I do suggest you remove your cellphone number from these threads; you may get a bunch of calls from less than well-intentioned folk.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. So you're the guy - your radio interview on mp3 here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #19
34. Someone say "Welcome" to Land Shark
Okay, I'll do it! Welcome to DU, Land Shark :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. Thank you for the welcome!
UL said I shouldn't post my cell phone number because of lurking Freepers. Let it be known that I don't wish phone calls from lurking Freepers, and if they want to call the Land Shark they had best know what they are doing. I served the first lawsuit under Washington state's anti-spam law and the offender just happened to have his upstream connectivity shut down within 24 hours of the story hitting the press. Just a coincidence, but something for Freepers considering harassment to consider.

Land Shark (as in hiring a lawyer is called "Launching a Land Shark")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. I like that ;-)) (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. FWIW my precinct results in King County looked very suspicious.
Typically we vote 88% dem. This time we had about 93% turnout, higher than normal, with 82% voting dem. I canvassed this precinct before the election, just about everyone was VERY motivated against Bush.
But we did the manual recount, which I observed (not my own precinct, but others) so if they did skim/pad in the governors race too they would have had to have replaced ballots at some point. Amazingly, I saw a few ballots where people voted for Jim McDermott for US Rep and Rossi for Gov!
I really wanted them to toss in the presidential race for manual recount as well. But I guess not feasible. :cry:
My gut instinct tells me Bushies skimmed votes in every state that they could, including WA. Probably about 5-8%, anything more than that would've raised more red flags.
I would still love to see the GOTV effort do a post-election canvass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
33. Two things about King...
One is that you should know that the "Registered Voters" numbers in the e-canvass is actually "Active Voters", and that there were more registered voters than indicated (people who have not voted in a couple of years are eligible to vote, but not included in that number.) So when comparing turnout make sure the numbers from old races are the same.

Second is that from my look at the precinct-level absentee vote, if anything happened, the most likely place to look from my analysis so far is in Federal Rep district 7 and State district 37, and especially in the group of precincts where the two intersect.

Here is a district-based precinct group list sorted from most absentee votes to least for each party, of precinct groups defined by the borders of districts (& here means the intersection of the two districts). Note how FR7 and R37 is in a different place in the list entirely, moreso than anything else.

Do also note that some amount of strangeness is normal when the number of the precincts in a group is very small, due to binomial effect etc. down at the precinct level.



Dem Rep

FR9 & R5 & S5 FR9 & R5 & S5
FR9 & R47 FR9 & R47
FR1 & R46 FR1 & R46
R47 FR9 & R31
FR8 & R47 FR7 & R37
FR8 & R41 & S41 R37
FR8 & R11 & S11 FR8 & R41 & S41
FR9 & R37 FR9 & R37
FR9 & R30 FR9 & R34
FR9 & R34 R31
FR9 FR8 & R31
FR8 R47
FR8 & R48 R34
R34 FR7 & R34
FR1 & R1 & S1 R46
R48 FR8 & R47
R46 FR8 & R33
FR7 & R34 FR8 & R48
FR9 & R33 FR7 & R46
R33 FR9 & R30
ALL FR9
R11 & S11 FR7 & R43
FR7 & R46 FR7 & R32
R37 R48
FR1 & R45 FR7
FR7 & R37 FR8
FR1 R33
FR7 & R32 FR9 & R33
FR9 & R11 & S11 ALL
R5 & S5 R32
FR7 & R11 & S11 FR1 & R32
FR8 & R5 & S5 FR8 & R11 & S11
R32 FR1 & R48
FR1 & R48 FR1
FR1 & R32 FR1 & R1 & S1
R45 FR7 & R36
FR7 FR1 & R45
FR8 & R33 R5 & S5
FR2 & R39 FR8 & R5 & S5
FR7 & R43 R11 & S11
FR8 & R45 FR2 & R39
FR7 & R36 FR7 & R11 & S11
R45
FR9 & R11 & S11
FR8 & R45

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Thank you. Do you have the 'hand count' results for King County...
...in a spreadsheet? I'm working on a spreadsheet that has a breakout of absentee vs election day that contains the initial counts and the 'machine recount.'

Would appear that for King County -- 62 % voted absentee.

Based on other info I have:

Snohomish County -- 68 % voted absentee.

Yakima County -- 71 % voted absentee.

Does that King County % absentee jive with your info?

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Hand count available here - not broken up by absentee/poll in the
hand recount, only the machine recount. It may become available later though.
http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/results.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Thanks ... ....
....I now have the initial tallies and the machine recount tallies broken into absentee vs election day. Am trying to get the 'hand count' tallies, now.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. I doubt they'll break up the manual count into absentee/poll
from what I observed those weren't numbers being recorded. Just the governors race broken up into piles by who. You'll probably have to use the machine recount for the absentee breakdown.
But the manual count totals are a link on the page above, you might've missed it:
Canvass of Manual Recount of governor's race (124KB txt file)
http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/archive/2004ManualReco...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakemewhenitsover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
26. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdmccur Donating Member (622 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
28. Ignatzmouse (DU name)
did an analysis on NC which showed many similar types of trends
(e.g. discrepancy in the exit poll vs tabulation result and red shift on election day relative to early vote). He may be a good person to contact about this. If I may, I will e-mail to him what you have stated above (I have his e-mail addres).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yes, I know his excellent work. If you pm me with your email address...
....I can send you several files, or, if you prefer, just send the text in the main post and in several of my comments.

And, perhaps he or you will know how to convert this King county data into a spreadsheet:
http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/canvass/2004/nov/Recou...

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdmccur Donating Member (622 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I sent him the information you listed in your top post.
If he wants to pursue, I'll get back with you.
I am a mathematician, but not very familiar with EXCEL unfortunately.
Nor am I a statistician. Have some knowledge of probablility theory. So with a little help maybe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Thank you very much(n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. I can convert that data...

I have scripts that work with that data already, and should be
able to extract into a CSV file for loading into spreadsheets.

But probably it would be best if you stated which races you
are interested in, because including all the data in the file
would probably cause most spreadsheets to choke.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Please check your pm. Thanks (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Judged Donating Member (613 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
37. Convincing to me. Was the Senate stolen too? The House too? OMG
More! Please!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
44. some questions from a non-statistician
Is Rossi stupid?

Why is the WA gov position so important that Rove would let him contest when it could blow the whole scam?

Did they think they could massage the recount as they did in Ohio?

Will Rossi back off with a phone call from Rove soon? Or, is this a distraction so they can talk election fraud and let the repuke media put all suspicion on dems?

And one statement--I think they've been stealing house and senate seats for several elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Well.....
....I don't know Rossi and I certainly don't know what he thinks.

If I had to speculate, he knows nothing about what appears (emphasis on, "APPEARS") may have happened. I don't think he'd be shouting 'revote,' if he did.

"We", for obvious reasons, want him screaming revote at top volume, all the time.

And, if I were the maestro of this complex symphony of systematic disenfranchisement I'd be silencing the dude with a big wad of cloth stuffed in his mouth. But, in reality, so many folk are going to be 'singing out of tune and out of synch' the maestro might best get a set of earplugs and become accustomed to bright orange shirts that don't require presidential cuff links.

We've made good progress in our collaboration with others, started due to this thread, and expect folk who have been working much more comprehensively on it than me to have a report out soon.

Peace.

"Its 7 Jan 2005: do you know who your president is?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Revote great, but not without fixing the problems
Revoting begs the question of HOW we will revote. There's also the possibility that on a revote too many people would vote based on the politics of who to blame for the revote rather than to cast the same ballot again. Revote all by mail, ala Oregon, to reduce administrative costs and avoid electronic machines?
LandShark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Agree with all the issues you raise.
One outcome of all this should be an awareness of the need to track the intent of the voter from the ballot to the tally sheet to what is reported. We need to track it in a way that ensures that each voter can know that their vote was 'counted' as they intended.

Technology can be used, but the level of scrutiny and security would need to be far beyond what happened in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and should approach at least the level of rigor and robustness as our use of a visa card to purchase toilet paper or a bank card to deposit a check into an account.

In this instance, I'm rather 'old fashioned', however. I like the notion of voting by mail, having the results of all vote tallies be in bound ledgers, and the ledgers, voter registration files and all ballots available for scrutiny at any time and archived with the respect that they deserve. Would love to see a special branch of the Library of Congress created to archive all ballots used in election of national representatives (pres/vp, senate, hr).

But, if we are going to use any form of digital technology, at any stage in the process, then a vastly more sophisticated, nonproprietary (meaning no private organization can have anything to do with the process and the technology used must be entirely open to scrutiny), secure and transparent to the voter, system must be established. It does not exist, today, in the US; at least not to my satisfaction.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. love this idea
"Would love to see a special branch of the Library of Congress created to archive all ballots used in election of national representatives (pres/vp, senate, hr)."


It should be on record as part of our history.

And I'm happy with your answer to my questions a couple of posts up. You're right, they couldn't let everyone in on the scam and plenty are and will continue to do and say things to incriminate BushRoveCo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Thank you and Happy New Year (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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