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
Google

Diebold strikes again in Ohio- Dr. Richard Phillips analysis shows huge manipulation [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
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 10:17 PM
Original message
Diebold strikes again in Ohio- Dr. Richard Phillips analysis shows huge manipulation
Advertisements [?]

UNOFFICIAL RESULTS IN SEVENTEEN OHIO COUNTIES CANNOT BE RIGHT (there are implications for other races)

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
December 7, 2006

ABSTRACT: In the November 7, 2006 election in Ohio there were 350,669 more
ballots cast than the number of votes counted for United States Senator.
In 16 counties there were 268,987 uncounted votes, or 19.46% of ballots cast,
compared to 82,957, or 2.99%, in 71 other counties. Cuyahoga County alone
accounted for 148,928 uncounted votes, or 26.48% of ballots cast in the county,
and 42.47% of the statewide total of uncounted ballots. In Marion County there
were 1,275 more votes counted for United States Senator than the reported number
of ballots cast, which is an impossibility. If the rate of uncounted ballots
in the 17 suspect counties had been about 3%, as was the case elsewhere in the
state, there would have been about 42,000 uncounted ballots instead of 269,000.
This indicates that 227,000 votes may have been lost by the touch screen voting
machines, which were utilized in all 17 of the suspect counties.

NOTE: This analysis is based upon unofficial results. If the official results
should reduce these discrepancies, the question will remain as to how the
unofficial results could have been so erroneous in the first place.

* * * * *

In the 2006 general election, according to the official website of Ohio
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, there were 4,177,498 ballots cast in
the State of Ohio. Of these, only 3,831,716, or 91.72%, contained votes for
Governor, and only 3,826,829, or 91.61%, contained votes for United States
Senate. These numbers create the appearance of undervote (or overvote) rates
of 8.28% and 8.39%, respectively, in the two most hotly contested statewide
races on the ballot. When the unofficial election results are examined
county by county, there is a strikingly abnormal distribution of undervotes
and overvotes. I have chosen the United States Senate race to examine in
detail because there were only two candidates on the ballot (and one write-in
candidate), which makes the mathematical analysis simpler than for the
Governor's race, in which there were four candidates on the ballot (and two
write-in candidates). A similar analysis could be done, and should be done,
or the Governor's race, and for all races in which the unofficial results
were very close.

The methodology was simple. The percentage of undervotes and overvotes for
each county was derived by fifth grade mathematics. The total number of
votes counted for the candidates combined was subtracted from the number of
ballots cast. The remainder is the number of uncounted ballots, or
undervotes plus overvotes. This number was divided by the number of ballots
cast to determine the percentage of ballots left uncounted in each county.
The complete data set for all 88 counties is appended to this paper.

There are 88 counties in Ohio. Of these 88 counties, according to unofficial
results posted by J. Kenneth Blackwell, 71 counties had rates of undervotes
and overvotes ranging from 0.88% (in Greene County) to 6.90% (in Holmes
County). In 62 of these 71 counties, the percentages were tightly clustered
between 2.00% and 4.50%. The rate in these 71 counties combined was 2.99%.

In 16 of the other 17 counties, including 4 of the 10 most populous counties
in the State of Ohio, the percentages of undervotes and overvotes were
clearly anomalous, ranging from 11.91% (in Montgomery County) to 26.48% (in
Cuyahoga County), with a combined rate of 19.46%, or six and one-half times
the rate in the rest of the state. Just four counties -- Cuyahoga, Lucas,
Montgomery and Stark -- accounted for 219,332 undervotes and overvotes, or
62.55% of the statewide total of 350,669. Cuyahoga County alone accounted
for 148,928 undervotes and overvotes, or 42.47% of the statewide total. It
is difficult to believe that more than one in four voters in Cuyahoga County
could not decide between Sherrod Brown and Mike DeWine.

UNOFFICIAL RESULTS: UNITED STATES SENATE

Ballots Cast Votes Counted Undervotes/Overvotes

16 counties 1,382,455 1,113,568 268,987 19.46%
71 counties 2,775,090 2,692,133 82,957 2.99%

In Marion County, Blackwell reported 19,853 total votes cast, and 21,128
votes counted for the United States Senate candidates -- an overcount of
1,275 votes. These are known as "phantom votes," because they are
apparitions, with no explainable origin. There can never be more votes
counted for an office than the number of persons voting in the election.


UNOFFICIAL RESULTS: UNDERVOTES AND OVERVOTES

County Ballots Votes Undervotes/ Voting
Cast Counted Overvotes Technology

Cuyahoga 562,498 413,570 148,928 26.48% touch screen
Morrow 15,679 12,242 3,437 21.92% touch screen
Belmont 29,045 23,192 5,853 20.15% touch screen
Coshocton 16,138 13,107 3,031 18.78% touch screen
Licking 70,705 57,704 13,001 18.39% touch screen
Jackson 12,025 9,974 2,051 17.06% touch screen
Lucas 164,003 139,003 25,000 15.24% touch screen
Tuscarawas 36,124 30,750 5,374 14.88% touch screen
Stark 139,646 119,011 20,635 14.78% touch screen
Perry 12,775 10,894 1,881 14.72% touch screen
Carroll 12,664 10,898 1,766 13.95% touch screen
Highland 14,351 12,358 1,993 13.89% touch screen
Wood 50,666 44,190 6,476 12.78% touch screen
Adams 9,592 8,378 1,214 12.66% touch screen
Hancock 28,692 25,114 3,578 12.47% touch screen
Montgomery 207,952 183,183 24,769 11.91% touch screen
Marion 19,853 21,128 -1,275 -6.42% touch screen


Note that there is no county falling between Holmes County (6.90%) and
Montgomery County (11.91%). The counties listed above are clearly anomalous.
The unofficial results cannot be right. And, of course, the unofficial
results in Marion County are impossible.

Note also that all 17 counties listed above utilized touch screen voting
machines, known in the trade as Direct Recording Electronic (DRE). 31 of 88
Ohio counties utilized optical scanners, and none of them had this problem.
Data on voting technology utilized in 2006 by each Ohio county is displayed
on a map provided by www.yourvotecountsohio.org

A word of caution is in order. In the 2005 general election in Ohio, several
counties reported incorrect figures for total ballots cast. The false
numbers were derived by counting absentee ballots twice, as the Diebold
tabulators were programmed to do. However, there is no evidence that this is
the cause of the abnormally high numbers of undervotes and overvotes reported
in 16 counties in the 2006 general election. The combined totals of absentee
and provisional ballots are reported by Blackwell for each county, and in no
case are these numbers anywhere near what would be required to account for
the discrepancies.

To the contrary, unofficial voter turnout in these 17 counties was 54.35%,
compared to 52.21% in the other 71 counties of Ohio. That is not much of a
difference. There were 1,402,408 ballots cast in these 17 counties. If the
rate of undervotes and undervotes had been about 3%, as was the case
elsewhere in the state, there would have been about 42,000. Instead there
were 267,712 (or 268,987 if one takes into account the 1,275 phantom votes
in Marion County).

This raises the disturbing possibility that some 227,000 votes were lost
by touch screen voting machines in Ohio. Surely this merits a full-scale
investigation. Whether or not this "affected the outcome," a phrase
generally intended to mean who won and who lost the election, is beside
the point. If 227,000 votes were not counted, the outcome was affected.


VOTER TURNOUT, UNITED STATES SENATE
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS: NOVEMBER 7, 2006

County Registered Ballots Percent Votes Undervotes/
Voters Cast Turnout Counted Overvotes

Adams 16,966 9,592 56.54% 8,378 1,214 12.66%
Allen 68,892 35,138 51.00% 33,758 1,380 3.93%
Ashland 35,499 19,458 54.81% 18,636 822 4.22%
Ashtabula 62,265 34,415 55.27% 33,614 801 2.33%
Athens 42,573 17,525 41.16% 17,078 447 2.55%
Auglaize 32,759 16,877 51.52% 16,427 450 2.67%
Belmont 43,396 29,045 66.93% 23,192 5,853 20.15%
Brown 27,436 14,290 52.08% 13,831 459 3.21%
Butler 236,998 114,908 48.48% 110,908 4,000 3.48%
Carroll 20,169 12,664 62.79% 10,898 1,766 13.95%
Champaign 25,162 14,553 57.84% 14,168 385 2.65%
Clark 90,057 49,972 55.49% 48,934 1,038 2.08%
Clermont 127,759 65,531 51.29% 63,308 2,223 3.39%
Clinton 25,826 12,749 49.37% 12,394 355 2.78%
Columbiana 79,855 37,143 46.51% 36,104 1,039 2.80%
Coshocton 20,768 16,138 77.71% 13,107 3,031 18.78%
Crawford 28,923 17,072 59.03% 16,430 642 3.76%
Cuyahoga 1,054,670 562,498 53.33% 413,570 148,928 26.48%
Darke 34,357 20,435 59.48% 19,726 709 3.47%
Defiance 25,769 13,168 51.10% 12,981 187 1.42%
Delaware 108,733 64,927 59.71% 63,248 1,679 2.59%
Erie 51,017 30,645 60.07% 29,795 850 2.77%
Fairfield 96,566 54,246 56.18% 52,441 1,805 3.33%
Fayette 15,476 8,510 54.99% 8,340 170 2.00%
Franklin 766,490 342,958 44.74% 333,466 9,492 2.77%
Fulton 28,633 16,269 56.82% 15,728 541 3.33%
Gallia 23,320 9,976 42.78% 9,862 114 1.14%
Geauga 63,299 40,006 63.20% 38,765 1,241 3.10%
Greene 104,200 57,168 54.86% 56,663 505 0.88%
Guernsey 25,429 12,936 50.87% 12,365 571 4.42%
Hamilton 566,661 282,190 49.80% 273,129 9,061 3.21%
Hancock 49,855 28,692 57.55% 25,114 3,578 12.47%
Hardin 17,604 9,805 55.70% 9,388 417 4.25%
Harrison 10,936 6,234 57.00% 5,967 267 4.28%
Henry 19,618 11,697 59.62% 11,201 496 4.24%
Highland 25,679 14,351 55.89% 12,358 1,993 3.89%
Hocking 18,035 9,800 54.34% 9,465 335 3.42%
Holmes 18,204 8,564 47.04% 7,973 591 6.90%
Huron 35,645 18,635 52.28% 18,020 615 3.30%
Jackson 21,748 12,025 55.29% 9,974 2,051 17.06%
Jefferson 48,693 26,344 54.10% 25,364 980 3.72%
Knox 36,348 20,784 57.18% 20,180 604 2.91%
Lake 154,048 86,684 56.27% 84,134 2,550 2.94%
Lawrence 41,470 19,209 46.32% 18,731 478 2.49%
Licking 102,300 70,705 69.12% 57,704 13,001 18.39%
Logan 29,730 16,488 55.46% 15,955 533 3.23%
Lorain 190,767 98,664 51.72% 96,324 2,340 2.37%
Lucas 296,541 164,003 55.31% 139,003 25,000 15.24%
Madison 23,597 13,583 57.56% 13,106 477 3.51%
Mahoning 175,923 96,027 54.58% 92,497 3,530 3.68%
Marion 43,814 19,853 45.31% 21,128 -1,275 -6.42%
Medina 121,000 65,600 54.21% 64,384 1,216 1.85%
Meigs 15,690 7,912 50.43% 7,661 251 3.17%
Mercer 30,985 15,510 50.06% 14,966 544 3.51%
Miami 68,309 36,686 53.71% 36,089 597 1.63%
Monroe 10,054 6,266 62.32% 5,925 341 5.44%
Montgomery 375,459 207,952 55.39% 183,183 24,769 11.91%
Morgan 9,605 5,480 57.05% 5,370 110 2.01%
Morrow 23,962 15,679 65.43% 12,242 3,437 21.92%
Muskingum 51,907 29,004 55.88% 27,739 1,265 4.36%
Noble 8,650 5,453 63.04% 5,124 329 6.03%
Ottawa 28,773 17,734 61.63% 17,238 496 2.80%
Paulding 13,619 7,749 56.90% 7,409 340 4.39%
Perry 20,888 12,775 61.16% 10,894 1,881 14.72%
Pickaway 30,917 17,383 56.22% 16,860 523 3.01%
Pike 18,320 9,632 52.58% 9,508 124 1.29%
Portage 103,718 55,283 53.30% 53,557 1,726 3.12%
Preble 27,699 16,007 57.79% 15,552 455 2.84%
Putnam 24,259 14,545 59.96% 14,031 514 3.53%
Richland 90,641 46,124 50.89% 44,900 1,224 2.65%
Ross 42,351 23,008 54.33% 22,262 746 3.24%
Sandusky 40,477 23,129 57.14% 22,265 864 3.74%
Scioto 47,285 26,072 55.14% 25,466 606 2.32%
Seneca 34,982 20,399 58.31% 19,818 581 2.85%
Shelby 29,476 17,523 59.45% 16,926 597 3.46%
Stark 270,515 139,646 51.62% 119,011 20,635 14.78%
Summit 373,289 199,256 53.38% 193,188 6,068 3.05%
Trumbull 141,393 81,011 57.29% 78,552 2,459 3.04%
Tuscarawas 56,295 36,124 64.17% 30,750 5,374 14.88%
Union 30,004 17,076 56.91% 16,554 522 3.06%
Van Wert 20,347 10,642 52.30% 10,299 343 3.22%
Vinton 8,666 4,598 53.06% 4,412 186 4.05%
Warren 127,843 66,684 52.16% 64,859 1,825 2.74%
Washington 39,547 23,134 58.50% 22,369 765 3.31%
Wayne 70,067 39,130 55.85% 37,753 1,377 3.52%
Williams 25,329 13,174 52.01% 12,687 487 3.70%
Wood 93,272 50,666 54.32% 44,190 6,476 12.78%
Wyandot 15,428 8,303 53.82% 8,006 297 3.58%

TOTAL 7,851,499 4,177,498 53.21% 3,826,829 350,669 8.39%

--------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICIAL RESULTS IN TEN OHIO COUNTIES CANNOT WITHSTAND SCRUTINY

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
December 21, 2006

A fortnight ago I posted a study showing that the unofficial election results
in 17 of 88 Ohio counties cannot be right. Marion County reported more votes
counted than ballots cast, which is impossible. The other 16 counties had a
combined rate of undervotes equaling 19.46% -- six and one-half times the rate
in the rest of the state (2.99%). In Cuyahoga County, 26.48% of ballots cast,
more than one in four, reportedly contained no vote for United States Senate,
the most hotly contested race on the ballot.

All 17 suspect counties utilized Diebold touch screen voting machines, known
in the trade as Direct Recording Electronic (DRE). 31 of 88 Ohio counties
utilized optical scanners, numerous counties utilized touch screens provided
by other vendors, and none of them had this problem.

If the rate of uncounted ballots in the 17 suspect counties had been about 3%,
as was the case elsewhere in the state, there would have been about 42,000
undervotes instead of 269,000. This raised the disturbing possibility that
227,000 votes might have been lost by the touch screen voting machines.

This analysis was based upon unofficial results. I stated at the time that
even if the official results were to reduce these discrepancies, the question
would remain as to how the unofficial results could have been so erroneous in
the first place. Now that official results have been posted on the website of
Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, I am able to compare the official
and unofficial results for the 17 suspect counties and analyze the changes.


COMPARISON OF UNOFFICIAL AND OFFICIAL RESULTS, UNITED STATES SENATE

-- Unofficial Results -- -- Official Results --
Ballots Votes Ballots Votes
County Cast Counted Undervotes Cast Counted Undervotes

Cuyahoga 562,498 413,570 148,928 26.48% 468,056 452,832 15,224 3.25%
Morrow 15,679 12,242 3,437 21.92% 12,952 12,481 471 3.64%
Belmont 29,045 23,192 5,853 20.15% 24,484 23,556 928 3.79%
Coshocton 16,138 13,107 3,031 18.78% 13,865 13,366 499 3.60%
Licking 70,705 57,704 13,001 18.39% 60,726 58,923 1,803 2.97%
Jackson 12,025 9,974 2,051 17.06% 10,669 10,288 381 3.57%
Lucas 164,003 139,003 25,000 15.24% 146,652 142,304 4,348 2.96%
Tuscarawas 36,124 30,750 5,374 14.88% 31,913 31,385 528 1.65%
Stark 139,646 119,011 20,635 14.78% 143,753 139,264 4,489 3.12%
Perry 12,775 10,894 1,881 14.72% 13,368 11,189 2,179 16.30%
Carroll 12,664 10,898 1,766 13.95% 11,566 11,053 513 4.44%
Highland 14,351 12,358 1,993 13.89% 15,064 12,981 2,083 13.83%
Wood 50,666 44,190 6,476 12.78% 47,089 45,515 1,574 3.34%
Adams 9,592 8,378 1,214 12.66% 9,972 8,570 1,402 14.06%
Hancock 28,692 25,114 3,578 12.47% 26,147 25,622 525 2.01%
Montgomery 207,952 183,183 24,769 11.91% 219,153 188,836 30,317 13.83%
Marion 19,853 21,128 -1,275 -6.42% 22,224 21,604 620 2.79%

SUBTOTAL 1,402,408 1,134,696 267,712 19.09% 1,277,653 1,209,769 67,884 5.31%


As shown in the table above, in four counties (Adams, Highland, Montgomery and
Perry) the egregious errors in the election results have not been corrected. There
are still far more ballots cast than votes counted. In fact, the discrepancies are
even greater than in the unofficial results. In Montgomery County alone, there
were 30,317 voters, or 13.83%, who did not vote for United States Senator. Either
that, or the official results are not true and correct which is, of course, the
case. And this is not the only problem with the official results.

In 11 of the counties where, according to unofficial results, ballots cast had far
exceeded the number of votes counted, the reported number of ballots cast has been
revised downward. In Marion County, which originally reported 1,275 more votes
counted than ballots cast, which is impossible, it is now acknowledged that the
number of ballots cast had been underreported in the unofficial results. But in
Stark County, where 20,635 undervotes, or 14.78% of ballots cast, were originally
reported, the Board of Elections now reports, in the official results, 4,107 more
ballots cast than in the unofficial results:


DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNOFFICIAL AND OFFICIAL RESULTS

Ballots Votes Absentee/
County Cast Counted Undervotes Provisional

Cuyahoga -94,442 +39,262 -133,704 30,791
Morrow -2,727 +239 -2,966 271
Belmont -4,561 +364 -4,925 529
Coshocton -2,273 +259 -2,532 157
Licking -9,979 +1,219 -11,198 1,464
Jackson -1,356 +314 -1,670 464
Lucas -17,351 +3,301 -20,652 3,694
Tuscarawas -4,211 +635 -4,846 497
Stark +4,107 +20,253 -16,146 4,488
Perry +593 +295 +298 369
Carroll -1,098 +155 -1,253 244
Highland +713 +623 +90 646
Wood -3,577 +1,325 -4,902 1,664
Adams +380 +192 +188 265
Hancock -2,545 +508 -3,053 851
Montgomery +11,201 +5,653 +5,548 10,272
Marion +2,371 +476 +1,895 698

SUBTOTAL -124,755 +75,073 -199,828


In Stark County, according to Blackwells website, there had been, at the time the
unofficial results were reported, 4,488 absentee and provisional ballots yet to be
examined from which, no doubt, the 4,107 additional ballots were drawn. Thus
there is no indication from the Board of Elections that the number of ballots cast
was overreported in the unofficial results. Rather, the number of votes counted
was underreported. These numbers deserve closer scrutiny:


COMPARISON OF RESULTS, STARK COUNTY

Sherrod Mike Richard
Brown DeWine Duncan

Unofficial 68,266 50,741 4
Official 79,900 59,353 11
Difference 11,634 8,612 7


If there were only 4,107 additional ballots in Stark County, how did Sherrod Brown
gain 11,634 votes, and how did Mike DeWine gain 8,612 votes? Where did these votes
come from? If there were only 4,488 unexamined absentee and provisional ballots,
where did the 20,253 newly counted votes come from? These numbers are impossible.

In fact, there are three other counties (Coshocton, Cuyahoga and Tuscarawas) where
the number of newly counted votes exceeds the number of absentee and provisional
ballots that remained to be examined on Election Night. In Cuyahoga County, there
were 39,262 newly counted votes, drawn from only 30,791 unexamined absentee and
provisional ballots. These numbers also deserve closer scrutiny:


COMPARISON OF RESULTS, CUYAHOGA COUNTY

Sherrod Mike Richard
Brown DeWine Duncan

Unofficial 291,469 122,101 0
Official 319,568 133,235 29
Difference 28,099 11,134 29


If there were only 30,791 absentee and provisional ballots in Cuyahoga County that
emained to be examined on Election Night, how did Sherrod Brown gain 28,099 votes
and Mike DeWine gain 11,134 votes? These numbers are impossible.

Finally, the vote totals for Richard Duncan, a write-in candidate, cannot be right.
By comparing the unofficial and official results, one sees that his vote totals
actually decreased, sometimes substantially, in four counties (Coshocton, Highland,
Lucas, and Marion). This is especially ridiculous in light of the fact that, in
many counties, write-in votes are not counted on Election Night, and thus are not
included in the unofficial results. For example, Richard Duncan received 29 write-
in votes in Cuyahoga County, none of which appeared in the unofficial results.


COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR RICHARD DUNCAN

County Unofficial Official Difference

Coshocton 6 2 -4
Highland 31 10 -21
Lucas 129 15 -114
Marion 19 0 -19


How did Richard Duncan lose 4 of his 6 votes in Coshocton County, 10 of his 31
votes in Highland County, 114 of his 129 votes in Lucas County, and all of his
19 votes in Marion County? These numbers are impossible.

There were 17 Ohio counties for which the unofficial results could not have been
correct. Of these, only 7 counties (Belmont, Carroll, Hancock, Jackson, Licking,
Morrow and Wood) have posted official results that withstand scrutiny. The
obviously incorrect results in the other 10 counties may be attributable to the
same problem that existed in the 2005 election the programming of Diebold
tabulators to report two sets of numbers for ballots cast. One, times counted,
may or may not be correct; the other, cards cast, equals times counted plus the
number of absentee ballots, which thus are counted twice. The result is, at best,
an erroneously high number of undervotes and, at worst, a window of opportunity for
altering the vote count. Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell had a choice of
which, if either, of these numbers to post as the number of ballots cast. Ohio had
the good sense to get rid of Blackwell. Now Ohio needs to get rid of Diebold.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TWO MORE COUNTIES WHERE OFFICIAL RESULTS CANNOT WITHSTAND SCRUTINY

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
December 22, 2006

Dale Tavris has performed a similar analysis of undervotes in the 2006 Senate
race. Using official results only, he identified not four, but six counties
with inexplicably high percentages of undervotes:

"Furthermore, there were six counties that were definite and extreme outliers
(all Diebold) compared to the other counties. Those six counties (Mercer,
Darke, Highland, Montgomery, Adams, Perry) had undervote rates ranging from
11.2% to 16.3%, with an average of 13.8%, while the other 82 Ohio counties
had undervote rates ranging from 0.62% to 6.76%, with an average of 3.37%.
The undervotes in the six outlier counties amounted to almost a quarter
(24.9%) of the undervotes in the whole state, whereas the total votes in
those six counties amounted to only 7.1% of the total votes in the state."

Two of these counties -- Darke and Mercer -- did not appear as outliers in
the unofficial results. At that time, the undervote rates for these two
counties were reported as 3.47% and 3.51%, respectively. The differences
between the unofficial and official results are nothing short of ridiculous:


COMPARISON OF RESULTS, DARKE COUNTY

Ballots Votes
Cast Counted Undervotes

Unofficial 20,435 19,726 709 3.47%
Official 23,350 20,187 3,163 13.55%
Difference 2,915 461 2,454 84.19%

COMPARISON OF RESULTS, MERCER COUNTY

Ballots Votes
Cast Counted Undervotes

Unofficial 15,510 14,966 544 3.51%
Official 17,483 15,532 1,951 11.16%
Difference 1,973 566 1,407 71.31%


There you have it. The percentage of provisional and late-arriving absentee
ballots containing no vote for Senator was 84.19% in Darke County, and 71.31%
in Mercer County. Either that, or the official results are not true and
correct -- which is, of course, the case.

When the unofficial results were posted on Blackwells website, it was
reported that there were 300 unexamined absentee and provisional ballots in
Darke County, and 534 in Mercer County. Somehow, another 461 votes were
counted in Darke County, and another 566 in Mercer County. These numbers
cannot be right. And there is surely no legitimate way to account for an
additional 2,915 ballots cast in Darke County, and 1,973 in Mercer County.
Again, the problem lies in the Diebold tabulators, which are programmed to
produce two sets of numbers for ballots cast. Very likely, Darke and Mercer
counties reported the number for times counted in their unofficial results,
and the number for cards cast in their official results. There is no
legitimate reason for any accounting system to keep two sets of books.
It is an open invitation to error and fraud. Diebold tabulators need to be
decertified in Ohio and in every other state of the union.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
 

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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