Cuyahoga County: Need Info on Split Polls

[Iceburg]

I am looking for information regarding which dozen or so polls were split in Cuyahoga county. This info is not published in the canvas results. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[mikelewis]

1. What are split polls? I have a bunch of info for Cuy County

[Iceburg]

2. precincts that have been divided in to two or more parts

because a portion of that precinct is outside the boundaries of another jusridiction. For example in Cleveland Ward 4 precinct 4-C, some of the registered voters in 4-C belong to the Shaker Hts School District, while other belong to the Cleveland Municipal School District, thus precint 4-C would need to be split into two polls respecting that boundary line.

The official canvas only reports at the precinct level, thus the numbers are rolled up.

[Iceburg]

3. Also need info on precinct Brook Park 3-A ... zero votes recorded

in the official certfied results. This number (zero) appears to have been rolled up to the state level certfied results as the state level results agree precisely with the cuyahoga canvas results (which report 4 registerd voters for Brook Park 3-A and absolutely "0" ballots cast)

It seems like a minor point in the scheme of things, but I am wrapping up several small loose ends (before I publish some very shocking facts. ) and I happened to come across an article from Jan 17, 2005 published in the Plain Dealer that states that Brook Park 3-A handled the highest volume of ballots cast per machine on election day, recording an average of 163 votes per machine.
The article entitled "Delays at polls weren't a scheme; Voting machines distributed evenly" can be found at http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1105957870247212.xml

I have had several e-mail exchanges with the author of the article who is very defensive of his numbers.

If anyone has numbers for Brook Park 3-A can you please share them with your brethren.

Let no stone be left unturned.

[mikelewis]

4. I am getting this from the Canvass Report 11/08/04

Registered Voters
1231 BROOK PARK 3-A -> 4

Votes in all elections for BROOK PARK 3-A -> 0

[Iceburg]

7. Exactly, 4 register voters .. zero votes

Kinda flies in the face of what the Plain Dealer is claiming.

Understand also, that the those numbers from Cuyahoga are in complete agreement with the certfied vote tallies for Cuyahoga at the state level.

[emlev]

13. I talked to Richard Hayes Phillips about this

He says, that there was probably a typo in the article about which precinct it was. He looked to see if there was a precinct where the total vote was a multiple of 163 ( the number of votes per machine), and that Brook Park 3F had 489 ballots cast. If there were three voting mahcines there, then there were 163 votes per machine.

He also said, "There were five precincts in Cuyahoga County with ballots cast in the single digits, and this is not necessarily suspicious, although it is a waste of electricity, horsepower, and voting machines."

One possibility he mentioned for why there would be very few registered voters or ballots cast in a precinct is if all the buildings had been torn down. That does happen sometimes!

Hope this is helpful.

[Iceburg]

17. The reporter for the Plain Dealer stands firmly by his numbers and

says he derived his numbers from reports provided by the poll
workers. He stands firmly with the numbers published in his
article. It important to note that in 2000, there were 390
ballots cast in this precinct (Brook Park 3-A)

Re: Richard's speculation on Brook Park 3F
According to the official canvas result there were 786
registered in 3F and 500 ballots cast (not 489)in 2004. And
with respect to the number of machines allocated, 3F allegedly
had 7 machines, thus giving it an average of 112 ballots cast
per machine. This machine data was provide by JKnapp via
Arnbeck.  (Emlev, I sent you an email regarding the validity
of the machine data this morning -- there's may entries that
puzzle me)

Richard's speculation is reasonable if you exclude all other
available info. So either the reporter's numbers are right and
the BOE's official canvas numbers are wrong, or they both are
wrong. But both cannot be right.

We need to question with voracity every significant anomaly if
all the votes are to be counted. The above example simply
illustrates how 400 to 500 votes can go awol. Perhaps there is
a perfectly legitimate reason why Brook Park 3-A has zero
votes ... I just haven't found that reason that is supported
by fact. 

I have had several exchanges with the author of this article
in the past few days. Enjoy the missive below:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark, I just came across your article today and a statement
you made aroused my curiosity.

1) You state that “Brook Park's Precinct 3A had the most
ballots cast per machine, with 163. Voters in that precinct
were among those casting ballots at City Hall. “ 

Since the office canvas results on page 0451 report  “zero”
votes for Brook Park 3-A  even tough 390 ballots are reported
to have been cast at this precinct in the 2000 General
election. Thus, I have to ask the obvious -- where did your
numbers come from? 

-----Original Message-----
From: MARK NAYMIK [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:55 AM
To: xxxx
Subject: Re: January 17, 2005 article entitled "Delays at
polls weren't a scheme"

Our numbers came from the adjusted and final reports completed
after the first canvass was created. Also, we didn't simply
rely on printouts. We called the poll workers and interviewed
them. They certainly don't remember "Zero" voters
but felt the numbers per machine we were using was accurate.
Let me know if you have any other questions. .

=============================================================
Mark, thank you very much for the response...it is much
appreciated.
Yes, I do have more questions and one final comment with
respect to Brook Park 3-A.

Re: Brook Park 3-A
The "official" results as posted on the Cuyahoga BOE
website actually shows "zero" votes (not voters) and
only 4 registered voters in the  official final canvas for
Brook Park 3-A.
 
Please check out
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/history/2004/110204_GE_Canvass.txt

The number of registered voters are on "PAGE 0005"
of the final canvas.
The distribution of presidential votes are on PAGE 0451 of the
final canvas.

The above numbers are the same numbers that were rolled up
into the overall state results.

Now on to my questions:
-----------------------
If the poll workers provided numbers to your staff that differ
from the official canvas, which numbers are we to believe? 

Did the Plain Dealer rely on the poll workers numbers for all
of the calculations? 

More specifically, with respect to the stated number of
machines in each precinct, were you relying on a copy of the
election day machines requests and the BOE's record of machine
delivery to the precincts or other sources?

Working with the data I have been able to obtain (which I
believe to be reliable), the 3 busiest precincts were:

   
1. CLEVELAND 4D with 274 ballots cast per machine 
   at vote address "15400 SOUTH WOODLAND ROAD", same
location as 5 other
   precincts:

	Precinct		Ballots Cast/Machine
	CLEVELAND 4D	275
	CLEVELAND 4G	 55
	CLEVELAND 4S	 71
	SHAKER HTS CC	 80
	SHAKER HTS D	 71
	SHAKER HTS J	 87


2. CLEVELAND 4C with ballots cast per machine
   at vote address "3241 E 130TH ST", the same
location as
   2 other precincts:

	Precinct		Ballots Cast/Machine 
	CLEVELAND 4C	167
	CLEVELAND 4I	 74
	CLEVELAND 4J	 67


3. STRONGSVILLE 3-C with 149 votes/machine
   At vote address "9306 PRIEM ROAD", the same
location as
   4 other precincts
	Precinct		Ballots Cast/Machine 
	STRONGSVILLE 3-C	149
	STRONGSVILLE 3-G	 82
	STRONGSVILLE 3-H	 78
	STRONGSVILLE 3-I	 74
	STRONGSVILLE 3-J	 78

These facts are corroborated by several first-hand case
reports documented in Vote Protect's Election Incident
Reporting System (EIRS). Vote Protect received over 40,000
calls on election day from across America, over 3700 of which
originated in Ohio of which close to 1400 originated in
Cuyahoga County. The incident reports that related
specifically to the 3 vote address above are:

Related EIRS Incident Reports for "15400 SOUTH WOODLAND
ROAD" **:
	Case# 	Description
     
----------------------------------------------------------------------
	34588		2 hr waits, need more machines and people. 
					Inspector reluctant to deal with it -- in over her head. 
			Rumors that precinct judge quit this morning.
			Superintendant said fine to call downtown. 

	37429		3 machines were added around 12:15pm, but still
incredible 			backlog.  Need more machines.  People in line
more than 3			hours.  9 people left at least.

	39974		Not enough machines--2-3 hour lines!

	46710		2 hours waits.  need more machines + people

	50923		Republican challengers demanding African Americans
produce 			licenses in order to vote.  Many people leaving. 
 
	56165		two hour lines for cleveland precinct at shaker
heights 			polling place

Related EIRS Incident Reports for "15400 SOUTH WOODLAND
ROAD" **:
	Case# 	Description
     
--------------------------------------------------------------------
	40403		VOTER MADE A MISTAKE, REQUESTED ANOTHER BALLOT, GIVEN
A 
			HARD TIME.  ALSO, 45 MINUITE WAIT FOR VOTERS OUTSIDE.  
			POLL JUDGES WON'T ALLOW THEM INSIDE.
	44742		Problems inside with judge, things getting very
heated.
			No atty avail.
	50302		She was told that her registration had been cancelled 
			since she had not voted for a long time. Voter insists
			that she voted in 2000 election and was therefore 
			eligible to vote. She cast a provisional ballot. 
	51670		Waited for an hour in 4J line and then was told to get
			into 4-I line.
	51678		Was told she was in the wrong polling place but had
always 
			voted here in the past.
	51707		4J larger precinct than other 2 precincts in same
polling 
			place.  4J should have its own polling place because its 
			too large to share with other precincts.
	51714		"Was told she was not on the list and could not
vote.  
			Elections worker had a ""bad attitude""
and was not 
			helpful."


Related EIRS Incident Reports for "9306 PRIEM ROAD"
(Strongsville 3-C)**:

	In spite of the calculated high volume of ballots cast at
this 
	Strongsville vote address, there is not a single case report
	of long lines (or any other problem type) which is a
curiosity 
	in itself. Could more machines have been allocated to this 
	precinct than previously reported?


	** These Ohio reports can be viewed on-line at
	https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapState&state=Ohio


In closing, I leave you with the following questions:

1. 	If the poll workers provided numbers to your staff that 
	differ from the official canvas, which numbers are we to
believe? 

2.	Did the Plain Dealer rely on the poll workers numbers for 
	all of the calculations? 

3. 	With respect to the stated number of machines in each
precinct, 
	was the Plain Dealer relying on a copy of the election day
machines 
	requests and the BOE's record of machine delivery to the
precincts 
	or other sources?

4.	If you are working from the BOE's election day machine
request log 
	and delivery report, did you notice that there are several
cases of
	 machines having been delivered to precincts that:
	a) had not requested additional machines; and
	b) are well under the normal allocation of machines per 
	   registered voters?
==================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: MARK NAYMIK [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 1:38 PM
To: xxxxx
Subject: [SPAM] RE: January 17, 2005 article entitled
"Delays at polls weren't a scheme"

Boy. I asked for it. Too many questions to try to go over. But
here's a few points to keep in mind. Your precinct
calculations might be off because there are a dozen split
precincts - which are not reflected in documents about which
machines were sent prior to election day. Covering the board
for years, I knew enough to asked for the list and figured
these adjusted totals into the final analyis. 

We relied on loads of documents from the board and checked
with poll workers on things that were unclear. As for machines
dispatched on election day, there were numerous factors that
went into why machines were sent where they were. For
instance, some precincts requested a machine when one jammed
or broke. But in many cases, by the time the machine arrived,
poll workers fixed the machine and the replacement was still
delivered but not set up. Long lines were not constant, so
machines sent on election day were  not always set up. (We did
not count any machines dispatched on election day cus there's
no way to know for sure which ones were set up. If we did,
Cleveland would have had an even lower per-machine volume.

As for the Vote Protect's Election Incident Reporting System
(EIRS), I found it to be inaccurate. I reviewed the reports
and found numerous flaws, repeats, and just flat-out incorrect
addresses or precint data. Too bad, too. Good idea. Bad
execution. 

I'm  confident in our story - that it reflects the election
day issues and the volume of votes in the suburbs vs. city.

In the end,  tt was a very good election compared to previous
elections, which have suffered from the same problems. Special
interest groups only now seem to care. Good thing because the
system does need to be improved.  

==================================
Yeah ...sadly ya did! But, once again Mark, your response time
is impressive ...gosh, you're outperforming the automated
replies!

But ...you still haven't answered my pivotal question with
respect to your numbers for Brook Park 3-A versus the
"official canvas numbers" -- Are the BOE's official
numbers wrong or are the Plain Dealer's numbers right? 

BTW,my numbers do take into account the machines dispatched on
election day whether they were set-up or not, so my numbers in
theory should be lower than yours.

With respect to the EIRS I concur -- it was a good idea, poor
implementation. That said, I have been able to recover about
900 of the 1400 incidents for Cuyahoga and relate them to
specific vote addresses within the county. Mind you it took
days to clean the data.

I'll be hear waiting patiently for the answer to my most
pressing question ;-) ... Are the BOE's official numbers wrong
or are the Plain Dealer's numbers right?

xxxxxx
================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: MARK NAYMIK [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 2:41 PM
To: xxxxx
Subject: RE: [SPAM] RE: January 17, 2005 article entitled
"Delays at polls weren't a scheme"

Your question is loaded. My story is based on their numbers,
of course, with my analysis and assumptions made where there
was no clarity. It's not a PD numbers vs. board numbers. If
that's your take, you will be disappointed and probably wrong
if you are not thoroughly  familiar with the system. We are
all using  the same election results - there's only one set.
Too many people are hung up on the canvas report, which is
badly organized and full of numerous definition and
organizational problems. For instance, votes cast in some
precincts is higher than the number of registered voters,
according to the  canvas. Why? The computer program counts
absentee ballots cast in a congressional district and puts
them into each precinct total, confusing most everybody who
tries to understant it. (No logic as to why the program does
it. There's also other organizational problems. The board
plans to use a different program in the future.) But the
canvas doesn't reflect a true voter control report, which we
obtained after the election and which is scrubbed for such
errors. I reommend studying that one. 
===================================================
Mark, please understand that my question is not loaded ... I
am neither attacking you article nor approaching my inquiries
from a particular "angle". My question is simply
aimed at getting the facts. I am very familiar with election
procedures, equipment and canvas reports and report output
protocol, having spent 20 years in the business. I have no
huge issue with the layout of the canvas report nor any issue
with how the absentees were reported aside from it being
confusing to a layperson.

My issue is strictly with the numbers one particular precinct
-- Brook Park 3-A which you single out in your article. 

If your story is based on their (ie. Cuyahoga) numbers from
some insiders, then your numbers like the officially certified
Cuyahoga numbers should agree with the officially certified
Ohio state-level numbers for Cuyahoga. Since the official
Cuyahoga BOE numbers agree precisely with the Ohio officially
certified state numbers, then either your numbers are wrong or
the state numbers are wrong. The state numbers for Cuyahoga
are based on precinct Brook Park 3-A having zero recorded
votes.

For what it's worth, I believe your numbers to be correct. It
is beyond the realm of probability that a precinct that
recorded 390 ballots cast in 2000, would have zero ballots
cast in 2004.

Do you have an electronic copy of the "voter control
report? That you would be willing to share?
===========================================
-----Original Message-----
From: MARK NAYMIK [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:00 PM
To: xxxx
Subject: RE: January 17, 2005 article entitled "Delays at
polls weren't a scheme"

I'm not threatened by your questions, just unclear on what it
is you are after. I said in my last email: board numbers. What
more is there to say?
=============================================
That's good because they were not meant to be.
If you have the number of registered voters, ballots cast and
the number of machines in use at that precinct I would greatly
appreciate if you could share those numbers.

Thanks

[emlev]

20. Fascinating...

That's all very interesting and I have forwarded it to Richard. Will let you know what he has to say about it. If you get an electronic copy of the "voter control report, we'd sure like to see it!

[berniew1]

21. Can't someone in Ohio resolve the Brook Park 3-A issue. Shouldn't be hard

call the S.O.E office. Did 390 vote in 2000 as indicated?
If so, what happened to the voters?
There are lists of voters that the parties and etc. have. They know the names and phone numbers of voters there.
But the SOE knows the answer.

[Iceburg]

22. Good points bernie ... I have emailed the BOE at least

7 times since November ... with ZERO response. I take it they don't respond to any out-of-country requests.

Ohio exhibits quite a contrast in styles with a state like Michigan, which has jumped through hoops (and in record-breaking time I might add) to provide me with a vast range of information. My info requests alone probably drove there operating costs up a percent or two. If you ever need info concerning the elections in the state of Michigan -- Bradley Wittman -- is THE MAN!
Wittman, Bradley S [email protected]
Director, Election Liaison Division
Michigan Department of State
Bureau of Elections

This guy can out perform an auto-responder!

Back to Cuyahoga ...
We need a volunteer that lives in the area to make a face-to-face visit with a BOE official to get a photo-copy of the "their" results for Brook Park 3-A.

[Bill Bored]

24. Not to mention the fact that mathematically an AVERAGE

has nothing to do with distributing ANYTHING EVENLY! Suppose that the outliers that skewed the average upward were all in Democratic precincts?

Maybe they should cite the MEDIAN number or voters per machine instead.

Just a thought but this is one of the ways statisticians can bamboozle non-statisticians like me!

[mikelewis]

5. What precincts in Cleveland showed evidence of switching.

I have read a few reports of machines getting switched where there were multiple precincts in one voting location. Any link available?

[Iceburg]

6. Mike there are more than 150 precincts that show evidence of switching

The most obvious of these are the princts with a high number of Peroutka, Badnarik or Spoiled. There ar 42 precincts in this set.
These are the easy catches. The remaining 150+ switches require a complex analysis of the district, county and state races along with comparison to the 2000 precinct data and EIS case reports.

I have developed a taxomomy for ballot order classification, analyzed 22 other contests in Cuyahoga, and the 2000 data using several statisical procedures (descriptive, comparative, correlation, ANOVA, and regression) and a extensive database that includes 900 of 1400 EIRS case reports. Because of the poor quality of the EIRS even after several days of cleansing I was not able to relate the 500 of case reports to a specific precinct or address.

I expect to find dozens more precinct votes that were switched because as I feed the corrections into the model, the modle becomes more precise. The tools merely assist me in identying precincts with anomalies. In the end, it is the entire presentation of facts, their weight that makes the case for or against a potential switch.
It takes approximately 1 day to "write-up" the facts, findings, and to re-calulation the vote distribution (based on the error found) for a single precinct case so it is a tedious process, but I am determined to present a paper based on specific facts at a level of granularity that cannot be dismissed.

Stay tuned!

[southwood]

8. Good to see you back...

...Iceburg, I admire your tenacity and am sure you will deliver!

[emlev]

9. I can give you Cuyahoga EIRS reports sorted by precinct

It's not possible to identify the precinct for every report, but I have a file sorted by precinct for the reports where enough info was given. Would you like me to email it to you? It won't paste into this window, and it's about four pages long.

[berniew1]

15. I'd like a copy

[emlev]

16. I'll get it to you n/t

[berniew1]

10. This wasn't touch screen switching, they have punch cards; problem was

counting the punch cards in the templet of another precinct(2 or more in one complex) that had a different candidate order. Since these were minority precincts most voted for Kerry, those counting by any other templet than the correct one loses Kerry lots of votes.

This happened in Cuyahoga(catepilla ballot). Kerry lost lots of votes.

But similar things happened in other places such as strange defaults for straight Dem ticket voters in several states- not Kerry.


Info on problems in Cuyahoga, see Ohio in
http://www.flcv.com/summary.html

and also
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
for info on the split ballot problems
I think Dr. Phillips has more details

[mikelewis]

11. The reason I'm asking is...

we had a school levy on our ballot for the Cleveland School District.

Do you know if the For and Against ballot markers would have been switched in different precincts as well as the rotation of names for President? If so, is it possible the the levy could have actually passed but the switching of the machines caused it to fail?

If so, I can get some movement on this from some local politicians. People round here were pretty surprised it failed, especially after the intense campaign they waged to get it passed. I remember hearing on the radio that it was supposed to pass. If it failed due to fraud and we can put the numbers together to prove it, or at least cast a doubt on the outcome, we may get somewhere locally.

[Iceburg]

12. Mike, the ballot order of Questions and Issues remains constant

only the candidate names in the contests with two or more candidates running for that office.

From section "§ 3505.03. Office type ballot" of the Ohio Election Code (Title XXXV)

... The names of all candidates for an office shall be arranged in a group under the title of that office, and, except for absentee ballots or when the number of candidates for a particular office is the same as the number of candidates to be elected for that office, shall be rotated from one precinct to another. On absentee ballots, the names of all candidates for an office shall be arranged in a group under the title of that office and shall be so alternated that each name shall appear, insofar as may be reasonably possible, substantially an equal number of times at the beginning, at the end, The rotation applies only to contests in which two or more candidates are running for a specific office.

From section "§ 3505.03. Office type ballot" of the Ohio Election Code (Title XXXV)....

"...The method of printing the ballots to meet the rotation requirement of this section shall be as follows: the least common multiple of the number of names in each of the several groups of candidates shall be used, and the number of changes made in the printer's forms in printing the ballots shall correspond with that multiple. The board of elections shall number all precincts in regular serial sequence. In the first precinct, the names of the candidates in each group shall be listed in alphabetical order. In each succeeding precinct, the name in each group that is listed first in the preceding precinct shall be listed last, and the name of each candidate shall be moved up one place. In each precinct using paper ballots, the printed ballots shall then be assembled in tablets. ..."
--------------------

Section 3505.06 which deals with Questions and Issues on the ballot, has no such requirent

[berniew1]

14. Do you have it on web; what is URL??

I'm interested in your analysis; data, etc.

[L. Coyote]

18. Cross-precinct voting - Vote Switching article link

How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes.

Page with spreadsheets of results.

The Cuyahoga County election results need to be analyzed with regard to how precincts were changed in recent years. How did precinct changes impact ballot orders (assigned in precinct number sequence) and vote-switching? Who decided which and how many precincts were to be combined where?

The most important reform needed was one ballot order per location, or, stated in a different way, a new method of assigning ballot orders to precincts to avoid having more than one ballot order per precinct.

[Iceburg]

19. The ballot order rotation problem if and of it self is not the problem

The problem is that the ballot orders were rotated (by law) ***AND*** there was no machine readable precinct identifier on the main ballot portion of the card (the part that is read by the tabulator). My understanding is that Ohio relies on the use of a header card deployed during the counting process to differentiate between one precincts cards versus another.

One of the easy ways to mistabulate punch cards (by accident or design) is to print and process them without any machine readable precinct identifier. Saltman, in his treatise on the accuracy, reliability and security on computerized vote-tallying devotes an entire section to this very topic. http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm

Here's the classic example of what happens when there is no machine-readable precinct identifier:
"In May of 1968, in Klamath County, Oregon, candidates' positions on the ballots were rotated in the precincts to avoid giving any candidate the unfair advantage of the top position everywhere, but the ballots got mixed up, and voters in more than a fourth of the precincts punched out rectangles for candidates they did not mean to vote for. "
. The above example is one of many "real events" cited in the bulk of the lawsuits brought against Kathrine Harris in 2000.

That said, a single ballot order per location would not necessarily have thwarted the apparent mistabulations in Cuyahoga. Would it still not be possible to move ballots from one location to another or use the wrong precinct header card in the tabulation process, thereby altering the outcome?

At this point, I believe inter-location (as opposed to intra-location) ballot transfer was a possibility and there is some circumstantial evidence to suggest it may have happened. Consider the precincts whose turnout dropped dramatically from the past election, then consider the precincts whose turnout rose dramatically. Pick the precincts in the 98th or greater percentile with respect to turnout, then compare them (and their respective ballot orders) to the precincts with a turnout in the 1st to 2nd percentiles....
That, in and of it self, of course is not evidence that an inter-location switch did occur, but when it is combined with other precint-specific pieces of information in the canvas data, EIRS case reports, 2004 results, and newspaper articles it moves beyond the realm of possibility and into the realm of probability.

Unfortunately we will never know the answer to the above questions with absolute certainty unless there is:

- a thorough audit of the poll/signature books;
- a thorough audit of the ballot stubs; and
- a manual recount of the ballots. (The precinct identifer was apparently ink-stamped on the nballot card)

That said, I'm not about to roll-over and "hope" that an audit and recount happens, we need to keep adding to the mounting pile of circumstancial evidence, thereby ensuring that it DOES happen.

[Bill Bored]

23. Iceburg is going to sink Capt. Blackwell's Titanic! nt