Reply #13: Here is a paragraph, from down in the article, that helps:

[Peace Patriot]

Note: He's talking about punchcards, and how you might punch the card for Kerry, but if your card is tallied in a different precinct, where the order of the names is switched (which it must be by law), your vote would record for Bush or for somenone else (lost vote for Kerry). In some locations in Ohio, precincts were combined in one location, and some people voted in the wrong precinct.

The text above Table 6: Benedictine High School Voting Results (9 boxes down the page)

"The cases following illustrate the variable impact of wrong-precinct voting. Table 6 displays the most egregious cross-voting location, Benedictine High School, where major candidates were not collocated. Up to 215 people in precinct 1806 cross-voted for Kerry in precinct 1814, punching the third position using the precinct 1814 voting machines. Those 215 Kerry votes counted for Peroutka (K-p) using precinct 1806's ballot order. Also, up to 164 Kerry voters from (precinct) 1814 punched the first position, Kerry in precinct 1806. Those 164 ballots counted as Badnarik votes, the first position in precinct 1814. Meanwhile, Bush lost (only) 10 votes to Peroutka in precinct 1814."

--------

Also useful, from his Conclusions:

"In 2004, the Ohio Presidential voting results do not accurately reflect voter intentions. In Cuyahoga County, the election was flawed and the design appears to have been manipulated. At locations with several ballot orders in use, many votes were cast by voters crossing precincts, then counted other than as intended. At precincts with the highest Kerry support, the percentage of uncounted votes is inexplicably high. The obvious inference—intentional manipulation produced concentrated undercounting, cross-voting and vote-switching in areas of highest Kerry support—cannot be ignored in the face of the evidence and statistics."


-------

http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

--------

Note: This study is incomplete, and the calculation of lost Kerry votes is still unknown, from what I gathered, at a glance. But the pattern of intentional switches from Bush to Kerry, or from Kerry to other candidates, seems clear. The author is dismayed at the lack of official investigation. Caveat: I don't want to see this study used to push electronic voting, which is even more manipulable--and faster and more undetectable. Also, from what I've gathered so far, legal investigation and prosecution is warranted. There was a quite intentional loss of Kerry votes, and gain of Bush votes, in the biggest Democratic region of the state. They did it by swtiching the punchcards, and tabulating them on a different machine, where Kerry's name appeared in a different place on the ballot.