Reply #57: Yes I read that after I posted my question.

[Bill Bored]

How about this:

You ensure that the shift is unidirectional. In other words, you allow some of the shifted Kerry votes to go to Bush, but none of the shifted Bush votes to go to Kerry. This way, without even knowing how anyone has actually voted, you know that Kerry's MARGIN will be reduced more than Bush's.

Let's say the ballot orders in 4 co-located precincts are:

4 Badnarik Bush Kerry Nader Peroutka
3 Bush Kerry Nader Peroutka Badnarik
2 Kerry Nader Peroutka Badnarik Bush
1 Nader Peroutka Badnarik Bush Kerry

If you randomly shift ballots upward from any row (precinct) to any other row, Bush will always come out ahead because Kerry will never get any of Bush's votes, but Bush will always get some of Kerry's. Of the shifted ballots, Bush will get 1/3 of Kerry's Precinct 1 votes, 1/2 of Kerry's Precinct 2 votes, and all of Kerry's Precinct 3 votes. Kerry will only get votes from the 3rd parry candidates, but never from Bush, unless you start shifting ballots in the opposite direction, from Precinct 4 downward.

Now, this also explains why some precincts, in this case, precincts 2, 3 and 4, could have more votes than registered voters, right? They are the ones that receive the shifted ballots, favoring Bush.

So, tell me, does this make sense? Could it have been done on the ground by steering voters from, in this case, lower numbered precincts to higher numbered ones but not the other way around? Could the lines for the lower numbered precincts have been engineered to be longer?

Tell me.