Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Electronic Vote Switching from Kerry to Bush - 9:1 swing state ratio

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
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-05 05:40 PM
Original message
Electronic Vote Switching from Kerry to Bush - 9:1 swing state ratio
This is a cross post to a thread I just posted on GDP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In May of this year, I did an analysis of the U.S. Electronic Incident Reporting System (EIRS) database (for the 2004 presidential election), in which I showed that incidents of "electronic vote switching" that favored Bush outnumbered incidents that favored Kerry by a ratio of greater than 12:1 there were 87 incidents that favored Bush, and 7 that favored Kerry.

My conclusions were:
1. The probability of such a lopsided ratio in favor of Bush was extremely unlikely
2. Although it was possible that these results could be explained by a reporting bias, whereby Kerry voters were more likely to report incidents than Bush voters, it seemed highly unlikely that this could result in such a large ratio.
3. Therefore, election fraud (i.e., purposeful programming of the computers to switch votes from Kerry to Bush) would seem to be by far the most likely explanation for these findings.

Recently, mgr has suggested that another way to test these conclusions would be to compare the rate of vote switches in swing states vs. non-swing states. It seems probable that Republicans would target election fraud in states that were likely to have influence on who won the election. Therefore, if the rate is much greater in swing states than in non-swing states, that would provide confirmatory evidence that bias was a highly unlikely explanation for the lopsided ratio of vote switches in favor of Bush.

Go to above link for a description of this study.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ordinaryaveragegirl Donating Member (853 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-05 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Your election results..."
"...Brought to you by Diebold and Friends."

I found another interesting link about all of these companies, and of course, most of them are big Repuke supporters. Chuck Hagel, of course, owns ESS, so no conflict of interest there. *smirk*

It seems like fraud was a given, since many of these machines don't leave a paper trail, and it makes it hard to backtrack things like the following:

Unusual Results: In the areas where computers were used to cast votes or tally them, some very strange results have surfaced. In just one county in Ohio, over 97,000 votes were originally cast than there are registered voters. Since then they have "corrected" the numbers but mysteriously, the total vote for the county did not change. In one precinct in Florida it was discovered that when the votes hit 32,000, a machine started to count backwards. Many people reported that when they tried to vote for Kerry, the screen said they voted for Bush. There are over 50,000 complaints like this registered. If you view the complaints which are available online, it is clear that almost every one resulted in a "glitch" that favored Bush. And for every "glitch" that has surfaced, we have no idea how many have not been noticed.

More here: http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/stolen-electi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. The reference to "50,000 complaints like this one" is important
Do you know the source or details for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I thought EIRS received 45,000+ reports, though your report says fewer.
It would also be useful for you to communicate with Common Cause, which received (as I remember) close to 200,000 complaints to their hotline. PM me and I will give you their Election Reform chairman's name and email address. You should also review berniew1's postings on his EIRS analyses, which are probably all in the 2004 ERD archives by now. I can give you his name and email address also if you PM me.

Thanks again for this new analysis. It is very convincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Well, that's surprising
When I compiled my data in May of this year, there were 28,734 reports in EIRS. Since that was several months after the election, it didn't occur to me that reports would subsequently be added. The current total is 42,775.

However, my analysis dealt with only a small subset of this total -- election day machine problems. I note in my post that there were 2,115 machine problems reported. At this time the database indicates 2,396 machine problems, though only 2,269 of them were from election day. So it appears that since I compiled my data for this study in May, a small number of relevant cases may have been added. I didn't go back to check because it never occurred to me that election day problems would be added to the database at such a late date.

Anyhow, I'll pm you for the information, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. If fraud is party-driven or activist-driven, swing states might be chosen
but if it is vendor driven, then the vendor may well wish to have all their machines operate the same so that any problem, if detected, can be "rationally" ascribed to technical glitches. Thus vendor driven fraud would not be restricted to swing states per se.

While I am agnostic on this causation issue, it is interesting that Sequoia has Nevada and New Mexico, and both were very close and would have resulted in an electoral college tie even without ohio. Sequoia has machines and expecially tabulators in Florida. There's one county in WA state that has sequoia that has been studied, and more than one in CA but neither of those states were particularly swing states (though WA was supposed to have been, for a while, then the Repubs pulled out).

So while it woudld be interesting to look at swing v non-swing to narrow down some issues, it would be preferable to see about 3-5 different approaches in the same study (another being reports by vendor, etc)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I do mention vendors in the article
ESS: 51%
Sequoia: 22%
Danaher: 16%
Diebold: 8%

The percentages of incidents are roughly proportional to the frequency of use.

I don't know what it all means. My understanding is that the vendors are very tight with each other, as well as the Republican Party. But I'm certainly no expert on this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. kick.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. This study has been posted by the 'Ohio Project' on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2019, 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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