National Election Survey Reveals 3.2 Million Uncounted Ballots in 2006 Elections -- UPDATED

[Melissa G]

National Election Survey Reveals 3.2 Million Uncounted Ballots in 2006 Elections -- UPDATED


By Kim Zetter December 11, 2007 | 12:11:33 AMCategories: Election '08

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/national-electi.html

The federal Election Assistance Commission -- the agency created after the 2000 presidential debacle that is tasked with overseeing voting machine testing and serving as a clearinghouse for election administration information -- published a survey of the 2006 election today that reveals some interesting stats.

The information, collected from election administrators nationwide, covers the number of registered voters per jurisdiction, voter turnout, types of voting systems used, percentage of votes cast by absentee and provisional ballots, etc.

One interesting nugget concerns the number of ballots cast vs. ballots counted in the election.

According to the report, about 82 million ballots were "cast or counted" in the 2006 election (the number isn't exact because not every jurisdiction responded to the survey). But some 3.2 million ballots that were cast never got counted.

The report provides a table showing the number of ballots that went uncounted by state (see the middle column in the table at right). For example, in Florida 122,759 ballots went uncounted in 2006. In California, the number was 416,260 ballots. Illinois held the record, however, with a whopping 889,012 uncounted ballots.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/national-electi.html

[mod mom]

1. They couldn't allow a veto proof margin, now could they?

[Igel]

2. The last time I staffed a polling station I watched a poll worker

guarantee that maybe a dozen affadavit ("provisional") ballots wouldn't be counted.

The precinct chair made a big point of helping dem voters complete their ballots. Repub voters others could handle--he would jump up to guide dems through the process. Late in the game, not long before the polls closed, one of us actually listened in--one who hadn't helped any voters with that kind of ballot and wanted to know how it was done. So the newbie hung close and followed along using the flip cards that the BOE nicely provided for inexperienced poll workers.

The precinct chair ensured that every dem voter casting an affadavit ballot signed the ballot on the security envelope. The BOE would first check for the poll worker's validation, remove that envelope and throw it away--then look for the voter's signature. But it wouldn't be a poll worker's signature there--it would be the voter's. Then, inside, there'd be a mismatch between the voter's name and signature (since the precinct chair had signed there, not the voter) and the ballot would be pitched at that stage, if it made it that far.

The precinct chair was a dem. He'd been county party chair for years before retiring. But he single-handedly managed to produce a dozen-vote difference between "cast" and "counted".

[Melissa G]

4. Interesting story. The more complicated it gets, the easier it is to lose votes

More rules= more places to screw up =less votes.
More repub friendly math!

[xchrom]

3. recommend

[tiptoe]

5. 2006 Uncounted and Switched Votes (TIA)

2006 Uncounted and Switched Votes

TruthIsAll      http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#UncountedSwitchedVoteMidTerm

The goal of this model is to determine the percentage of votes which needed to be switched from the Democrats to the Republicans in order to match the Nov. 9 CBS News reported 52.7% Democratic vote. The Democratic 120 Generic poll trend forecast 56.4%; the initial Wikipedia vote count was 57.7D-41.8R. The model assumes that the Wikipedia numbers represented the TRUE national vote. The analysis does not include the millions of disenfranchised voters (mostly Democratic) who never got to the polls. The Generic LV pre-election polls, as one-sided as they were, low-balled the intended Democratic vote.

Based on historical statistics, approximately 3% of total votes cast are never counted. Approximately 75% of them are Democratic. The racial mix was used to approximate the number of uncounted votes in each state, assuming that 8% of non-whites and 2% of white votes were uncounted. The base case analysis assumes that 7% of the recorded votes were switched. To match the Wikipedia vote share, we assume that 3.16% of total votes cast were uncounted and. Almost one in 12 Democratic votes must have been switched to the Republicans.

To derive an approximation to the TRUE vote in each demographic category, the 7pm NEP vote shares and weights were adjusted to match the Wikipedia vote. The base case assumptions were: a) 4.0% of Democratic votes and 1.4% of Republican/other votes were uncounted and b) 7% of Democratic votes were switched to the Republicans.

The 16% Democratic margin was based on the 120-Generic poll linear trend which was confirmed in the Wikipedia early vote count. It has always been the case that millions of ballots, mostly Democratic, are never counted. In this election, uncounted ballots accounted for less than half of the total discrepancy. The major fraud factor was vote-switching at the polling place and/or the central tabulator.

The Intended Vote is given by:

             IV = Recorded + Uncounted + Switched + Disenfranchised

The True Vote is given by:

             TV = Recorded + Uncounted + Switched

Assuming a 7.0% switch-vote rate, the Democratic TRUE vote was 56.94%, a close match to the Generic 120-Poll trend line projection. At an 8.5% switch rate the TRUE vote was 57.7%, matching the Wikipedia recorded vote share.


Base Case Model Assumptions:

   Switched:  7.00% Dem to Rep
   Uncounted: 3.16% of total votes cast

Uncounted Vote Shares
Race    Share  Reported   Pct    Unctd   Total    Pct     Unctd                  
White   2.0%     62542   81.7%    1276   63819   80.7%    1.61%                  
Other   8.0%     14043   18.3%    1221   15264   19.3%    1.54%                  
Total   3.16%    76585  100.0%    2497   79082  100.0%    3.16%                  

Base Case Summary                                               
Party                                                            Switched      TRUE Vote  
Dem     75%      40331   52.66%   1873   42204   53.37%   2.45%    2823     45027   56.94%
Rep     23%      34564   45.13%    574   35138   44.43%   0.75%   -2823     32315   40.86%
Other    2%       1690    2.21%     50    1740    2.20%   2.87%      0       1740    2.20%
Total   3.16%    76585  100.00%   2497   79082  100.00%   3.16%      0      79082   100.0%

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_2006">U.S. House of Representatives Election Results

Party        Seats                 Popular Vote        
        2004  2006 
Dem      202   233  +31    39,267,916    57.7%   +11.1% 
Rep      232   202  -30    28,464,092    41.8%   - 7.4% 
Indep      1     0   -1        69,707     0.1%     0.5% 
Other      0     0    0       255,876     0.4%   - 3.2% 
Total    435   435    0    68,057,591   100.0%      0 

Probability of Discrepancy
MoE       1.50%  
Prob    = NORMDIST (0.5266, 0.5694, 0.015/1.96, TRUE) 
        = 1 in 86,082,782     

Sensitivity Analysis of Democratic TRUE Vote to Switched-vote rate
Switch   Dem  %    Probability: 1 in
 5.0%    56.17%           444,121
 6.0%    56.43%         2,308,702 (matches 120 Generic poll trend)
 6.5%    56.68%        13,359,311
 7.0%    56.94%        86,082,782 (base case)
 7.5%    57.19%       617,885,835
 8.0%    57.45%     4,941,793,389
 8.5%    57.70%    43,247,703,725 (matches Wikipedia vote count)

U.S. House Vote (thousands)
CBS News 11/09
                      Reported                               Uncounted          Switch              TRUE             Margin            
         Total    Dem      GOP      Other  Margin   Total%   Dem   Rep   Other    Dem      Dem      Rep     Other  Discrepancy  
         76585    52.66%   45.13%   2.21%   7.53%    3.16%  1873   574    50     2823     56.94%   40.86%   2.20%  

AL        579     38.7%    60.8%    0.5%   -22.1%    3.7%     16     5    0.4      16     42.6%    56.8%    0.6%     7.1%
AK        202     40.1%    56.9%    3.0%   -16.8%    3.7%      6     2    0.2       6     44.0%    53.0%    2.9%     7.2%
AZ       1127     42.5%    51.1%    6.4%   - 8.6%    2.7%     23     8    0.6      34     46.2%    47.5%    6.3%     7.1%
AR        747     60.0%    40.0%    0.0%    19.9%    3.1%     18     6    0.5      31     64.5%    35.5%    0.1%     9.7%
CA       6236     56.9%    39.8%    3.3%    17.2%    3.4%    158    53    4.2     248     61.3%    35.4%    3.3%     9.3%

CO       1371     53.1%    41.7%    5.2%    11.4%    2.6%     27     9    0.7      51     57.2%    37.7%    5.1%     8.5%
CT       1079     60.4%    39.0%    0.6%    21.4%    2.9%     23     8    0.6      46     64.9%    34.5%    0.6%     9.6%
DE        509     38.7%    57.2%    4.1%   -18.5%    3.5%     13     4    0.4      14     42.5%    53.4%    4.1%     6.9%
FL       3727     40.2%    58.0%    1.8%   -17.8%    3.1%     88    29    2.3     105     43.9%    54.2%    1.8%     7.0%
GA       1916     41.7%    58.3%    0.0%   -16.6%    4.0%     58    19    1.5      56     45.8%    54.2%    0.1%     7.5%

HI        338     65.1%    34.9%    0.0%    30.2%    6.4%     16     5    0.4      15     69.9%    30.0%    0.1%    11.6%
ID        435     39.8%    55.9%    4.4%   -16.1%    2.3%      8     3    0.2      12     43.3%    52.4%    4.3%     6.6%
IL       3127     55.4%    44.2%    0.4%    11.2%    3.2%     75    25    2.0     121     59.7%    39.8%    0.5%     9.1%
IN       1646     48.8%    49.9%    1.3%   - 1.1%    2.7%     33    11    0.9      56     52.8%    45.9%    1.4%     7.9%
IA       1028     47.7%    50.6%    1.8%   - 2.9%    2.3%     18     6    0.5      34     51.5%    46.7%    1.8%     7.6%

KS        827     43.7%    54.4%    1.9%   -10.8%    2.7%     16     5    0.4      25     47.4%    50.6%    1.9%     7.2%
KY       1244     47.9%    49.0%    3.1%   - 1.0%    2.6%     24     8    0.6      42     51.8%    45.1%    3.1%     7.8%
LA        901     32.6%    64.4%    3.0%   -31.7%    4.2%     28     9    0.7      21     36.5%    60.6%    3.0%     6.4%
ME        529     65.2%    30.4%    4.3%    34.8%    2.2%      9     3    0.2      24     69.9%    25.8%    4.3%    10.0%
MD       1344     61.6%    35.3%    3.1%    26.3%    4.1%     41    14    1.1      58     66.2%    30.8%    3.0%    10.2%

MA       1068     74.3%    18.5%    7.2%    55.7%    2.8%     22     7    0.6      56     79.3%    13.6%    7.1%    11.5%
MI       3516     51.0%    46.2%    2.8%     4.7%    3.1%     83    28    2.2     126     55.2%    42.1%    2.7%     8.4%
MN       2178     53.0%    42.5%    4.5%    10.5%    2.6%     42    14    1.1      81     57.1%    38.4%    4.5%     8.5%
MS        581     43.2%    50.8%    6.0%   - 7.6%    4.3%     19     6    0.5      18     47.4%    46.8%    5.9%     7.9%
MO       2050     47.1%    50.3%    2.6%   - 3.2%    2.9%     45    15    1.2      68     51.0%    46.4%    2.6%     7.8%

MT        805     39.0%    59.1%    1.9%   -20.1%    2.5%     15     5    0.4      22     42.5%    55.6%    1.9%     6.6%
NE        586     43.9%    56.1%    0.0%   -12.3%    2.5%     11     4    0.3      18     47.6%    52.4%    0.0%     7.2%
NV        573     50.1%    45.2%    4.7%     4.9%    3.0%     13     4    0.3      20     54.2%    41.2%    4.6%     8.3%
NH        402     52.0%    47.0%    1.0%     5.0%    2.2%      7     2    0.2      15     56.0%    43.0%    1.0%     8.2%
NJ       1859     51.0%    47.6%    1.3%     3.4%    3.4%     47    16    1.3      66     55.3%    43.4%    1.4%     8.5%

NM        545     55.8%    44.2%    0.0%    11.6%    2.9%     12     4    0.3      21     60.1%    39.9%    0.1%     9.0%
NY       3561     64.2%    35.6%    0.2%    28.6%    3.6%     95    32    2.5     160     68.8%    30.9%    0.3%    10.4%
NC       1842     50.8%    49.2%    0.0%     1.5%    3.6%     49    16    1.3      65     55.0%    44.9%    0.1%     8.6%
ND        433     65.6%    34.4%    0.0%    31.2%    2.5%      8     3    0.2      20     70.3%    29.7%    0.0%    10.2%
OH       3763     52.4%    47.4%    0.2%     4.9%    2.9%     82    27    2.2     138     56.5%    43.2%    0.3%     8.5%

OK        905     41.2%    57.2%    1.5%   -16.0%    3.3%     22     7    0.6      26     45.0%    53.4%    1.6%     7.2%
OR       1264     56.4%    41.4%    2.2%    15.0%    2.5%     24     8    0.6      50     60.7%    37.1%    2.2%     8.9%
PA       3815     54.0%    44.7%    1.3%     9.3%    2.8%     81    27    2.2     144     58.2%    40.4%    1.3%     8.7%
RI        372     71.0%    11.3%   17.7%    59.7%    2.7%      7     2    0.2      18     75.9%     6.8%   17.3%    11.0%
SC       1072     43.5%    55.3%    1.2%   -11.8%    3.9%     32    11    0.8      33     47.6%    51.2%    1.2%     7.7%

SD        667     69.1%    29.4%    1.5%    39.7%    2.7%     13     4    0.4      32     73.9%    24.5%    1.5%    10.7%
TN       1712     50.2%    46.6%    3.2%     3.7%    3.1%     40    13    1.1      60     54.4%    42.5%    3.2%     8.3%
TX       3994     44.6%    51.8%    3.6%   - 7.2%    3.0%     90    30    2.4     125     48.5%    48.0%    3.5%     7.5%
UT        549     42.6%    51.5%    5.8%   - 8.9%    2.4%     10     3    0.3      16     46.3%    48.0%    5.7%     7.0%
VT        524     53.2%    44.7%    2.1%     8.6%    2.2%      9     3    0.2      20     57.3%    40.6%    2.1%     8.4%

VA       2148     37.7%    56.8%    5.5%   -19.1%    3.6%     57    19    1.5      57     41.5%    53.1%    5.4%     6.8%
WA       1309     61.3%    38.1%    0.5%    23.2%    2.9%     28     9    0.8      56     65.9%    33.6%    0.6%     9.7%
WV        446     57.8%    42.2%    0.0%    15.7%    2.3%      8     3    0.2      18     62.2%    37.8%    0.0%     9.0%
WI       1852     54.0%    45.1%    0.8%     8.9%    2.6%     36    12    1.0      70     58.2%    40.9%    0.8%     8.6%
WY        377     48.8%    49.3%    1.9%   - 0.5%    2.3%      7     2    0.2      13     52.7%    45.4%    1.9%     7.8%

[Pooka Fey]

6. K&R

[mod mom]

7. Stars&Stripes: Less than Half of Military Overseas Votes Counted in '06

Less than half of military votes overseas counted
Election commission: 57,000 ballots were cast in '06

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Tuesday, September 25, 2007


WASHINGTON — Overseas military voters had less than half of their votes counted in last year's congressional elections, according to data released by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission on Monday.

"One thing is clear: At every level of government, we need to do a better job," said Donetta Davidson, chair of the commission. "We must make sure all eligible voters are getting their opportunities."

The figures, released at the commission's annual conference on ways to improve and troubleshoot the absentee voting process, showed that only about 992,000 of the nearly 6 million eligible overseas citizens requested ballots for the 2006 general election.

That included about 119,000 military personnel stationed outside the United States. Of those, only about 57,000 — less than 48 percent — had their votes successfully cast or counted.

-snip

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56561&archive=true

[flashl]

8. K&R n/t

[rumpel]

9. kicking n/t