You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Bush's win was a historical anomaly-- is this evidence of fraud? [View All]

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
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 08:09 PM
Original message
Bush's win was a historical anomaly-- is this evidence of fraud?
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Sat Jan-15-05 08:13 PM by spooked911
Initially I wanted to see if the 11.5 million votes Bush got compared to 2000 was unusual for an incumbent president.

What I found was that his increase in votes, compared to the overall percentage increase in voters, was not unusual.

Thus, Bush got 11.5 million new votes from 2000-- but this was really an increase of 9.5% over his totals from 2000.

What is strange is if you compare Bush winning percentage, 2.5% over Kerry, with his increase in new votes, Bush's win really stands out.

Thus looking at incumbents winning the presidency in the past 75 years, and I count Truman winning in 1948 and Johnson winning in 1964, there have been 10 elections where the incumbent has won (FDR, FDR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush). Of these 10 elections, 7 times the incumbents received more votes than he did 4 years earlier.

Now look at this list of incumbents who increased their votes from the previous election:

1st number is % margin of victory
2nd number is % total increase votes (compared to previous election)

FDR 1936 / 24% / 5%
Eisenhower 1956 / 15% / 2.3%
Johnson 1964 / 23% / 12.8%
Nixon 1972 / 23% / 20%
Reagan 1984 / 18% / 11.4%
Clinton 1996 / 8.5% / 2.6%
Bush 2004 / 2.5% / 9.4%

So Bush's increase in votes is right in the middle-- but when you look at his margin of victory, it is way way far off from the other president's margins.

While this clearly doesn't prove anything, it makes Bush's 2004 vote increase very strange. Of course, one explanation is fraud-- switching votes from Kerry to Bush.

In fairness, if you go back to Wilson's win in 1916, he had only a 3% margin of victory and he picked up 15.6% more votes than in 1912. But the 1916 election had a 29% increase in voters compared to 1912, which was one of the highest increases ever (I'm not sure why-- maybe because of the start of WW I). In 2004, there was a 16% increase in voters, high but not unusually high.

So I think Bush's win can either be seen as fraud, or due to some world-transforming event like 9/11, which could have caused to the electorate to behave like 1916.

But for many other reasons, I think fraud is the most likely explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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