Has anyone looked at these New Mexico Numbers?

[AnIndependentTexan]

Something fishy about these numbers

http://lnvb.westside.com/NewMexico/NewMexicoByCounty.html

New Mexico Registration vs Polling Results

Cibola Co
130.77% Republican Turnout
35.83% Demo Turnout

Curry Co
104.72% Republican Turnout
41.56% Demo Turnout

Grant Co
121.82% Republican Turnout
55.22% Demo Turnout

Hidalgo Co
158.50% Republican Turnout
38.93% Demo Turnout

Lea Co
108.29% Republican Turnout
31.09% Demo Turnout

[Pastor of Deaniacs]

1. By % turnout...

Do you mean MORE Repubs shgowed up than were actually registered?!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. and these are not including provisional ballots

that is when you have to use one-- when you do not show up on the register.

[sandnsea]

3. Dems voting Pub

I don't think New Mexico has released it's complete breakdown of voters yet. From looking at these, since I've already looked at some New Mexico numbers, they are taking the number of R & D voters and comparing them to the number of R & D Presidential votes. That has nothing to do with turnout.

Say you've got 5 ding dongs and 5 twinkies. One day, 4 twinkies pretend to be ding dongs. You don't have more ding dongs. We will need full reports on turnout by party and I don't think we've got that yet. And if this is how all these excess voters in the country are being calculated, then another mistake has been made.

[life_long_dem]

15. just wondering

are the republicans the ding-dongs or the twinkies? LOL

[shelley806]

4. There's something fishy about this entire election! Please someone

try and figure out how to keep the election fraud article by the online encyclopedia Wikipedia; it has been voted for deletion and it is the best coverage in print so far...

Link to article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities#Evidence_of_electronic_voting_bias

Link to DU thread about deletion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[lostnfound]

5. Only Hidalgo looks bad..and it's too small to be significant IMO

These are small counties with huge 'no party' registrations. In 4 counties, the 'no parties' registrations are 2 or 3 times more than the excess republican votes.

But Hidalgo currently shows
2,132 registered Ds .........861 Kerry votes
665 registered Rs...........1081 Bush votes
128 registered no-party
40 other......................22 other votes

Bush got 1081 votes which would require 416 non-R votes...means around 300 or so D's would have to have voted for Bush.

Not knowing the town, I can't say what that means, but it seems possible..he got 954 votes last time to Gore's 839.

However Republican registrations have stayed flat since 2000 in that county..

[Eloriel]

6. NOTHING is too small to be significant -- unless

your goal is, foolishly, trying to get Kerry in office.

We have to show how unreliable and even fraud-prone ALL these machines are, from touchscreens (DREs) to optical scans and even, if computerized, punchcard tabulators.

Some wise DUers (whose name I neglected to note) pointd out that the BEST places to shave votes are in the strongholds -- both Kerry and Bush. IOW, in a Bush stronghold, take even more votes for Bush because no one will question that he won. Take votes in a Kerry stronghold too, and as long as Kerry still wins that area, no one will question the results. Remember too, it's the STATEWIDE totals that award the electoral votes for that state, so every little bit helps. A thousand here, two thousand there, times 50 states (or however many had electronic voting devices) and pretty soon you have a 3.5 million popular vote "win."

[silvershadow]

18. Nothing is too small to be significant. Our voting could easily be

100% accurate. It is very possible. The powers that be just have to make that happen. Unfortunately, the powers that be have an interest in NOT having that happen.

[jsamuel]

7. LOOK UP 2000 NUMBERS FOR THE SAME COUNTIES FIRST!!!

Make sure this doesn't become a red haring also!!!

[alittlelark]

9. a red rabbit???

there is a spell check at the bottom.

[jsamuel]

11. Nice netiquete.... :P

[jsamuel]

10. http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm

[lostnfound]

12. Here's all counties in NM for any who wants them 00 and 04

County, Kerry, Bush 04, Gore, Bush 00
Bernalillo, 128,531, 119,161, 99,461, 95,249
Cibola, 3,969, 3,428, 4127, 2752
Colfax, 2,824, 3,082, 2653, 2600
Grant, 7,044, 6,092, 5673, 4961
Lea, 3615, 14347, 3855, 10157
Mora, 1,876, 928, 1456, 668
SanJuan, 14,616, 29,140, 11980, 21434
SanMiguel, 8,010, 3,020, 6540, 2215
Sandoval, 11,176, 14,355, 14899, 15423
Socorro, 4025, 3,696, 3294, 3173
Taos, 10,814, 3,616, 7039, 2744
Catron, 551, 1,427, 353, 1273
Curry, 3,541, 10,649, 3471, 8301
DeBaca, 280, 705, 349, 612
Harding, 259, 380, 214, 366
Hidalgo, 861, 1081, 839, 954
Roosevelt, 2,083, 4,998, 1762, 3762
Eddy, 6866, 13240, 7108, 10335
LosAlamos, 5,206, 5,810, 4149, 5623
Luna, 3,340, 4,164, 2975, 3395
Quay, 1,422, 2661, 1471, 2292
Union, 411, 1,454, 452, 1269
Chaves, 6,716, 14,748, 6340, 11378
DonaAna, 30,602, 29,023, 23912, 21263
Guadalupe, 1,340, 914, 1076, 548
Lincoln, 2833, 6,079, 2027, 4458
McKinley, 10,277, 5,311, 10281, 5070
Otero, 6,431, 14,062, 5465, 10258
RioArriba, 9,737, 5,136, 8169, 3495
SantaFe, 46,553, 18,315, 32017, 13974
Sierra, 1,926, 3,162, 1689, 2721
Torrance, 2,386, 4,026, 1868, 2891
Valencia, 11,176, 14,355, 9819, 10803

[liquiduniverse]

16. A few counties are showing anomalies which may merit closer attention

There are a few counties where Bush's numbers increased significantly while Kerry's numbers declined or stayed flat compared to Gore's. Just by doing a quick scan of these numbers, Lea, Eddy, Cibola and Chaves counties all would fit in this category (and probably a few others).

Eddy county in particular - Gore received 41% of the votes between the two candidates while Kerry only received 20%.

Another anomaly is in SanDoval county, where the overall numbers declined significantly. Bush's totals slightly dropped, while Kerry's fell greatly vs. Gore. I don't know much about New Mexico, but I would doubt there is any significant population decline anywhere in the state. Maybe there are some votes still not being reported?

[lostnfound]

19. Yes, I forgot to mention, Sandoval is incomplete.

The number on the website is changing often for the last 24 hours.

[alittlelark]

8. I wonder how many did 'early voting' via touch-screens

1/3 of NM's voted early on them.... an 11th hr decision was made to switch to optical scan on election day.....


I REALLY want to see the break-down on early vs Nov 2 voters.

[loudsue]

17. A friend of mine was taking affidavits from people in NM in early voting

who pressed the "Kerry" button, and the machine kept showing the vote for "bush". There is a group in New Mexico who have been working on this for quite a while.

From what I understand, the same things were happening in Texas (including Austin, of all places), and in Florida.

:kick:

[Woo]

23. Question...?

Should/WHen they do these recounts -- such as the one in New Hampshire and on to states such as New Mexico -- What happens if the point in which the 'cheat' gets recorded happens when a person selects their candidate. Listening to reports about the NH recount -- it sounds like they're fairly certain that the vote was recorded correctly, but not counted correctly -- so it will correct itself in the hand recount. What happens if that doesn't happen -- how will we get access to the machines?

[allthatjazz]

20. voting machines

you say they made a decision at the 11th hour to switch voting machines .... does that mean that the info posted on http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/ is not updated to reflect that?

[alittlelark]

24. I send them a message when you pointed that out.

I was in Alb - and the 'election protection' lawyer told me they had done it. I'm not sure if it was in all counties....

[ahimsa]

13. Yes, fishy

.. because "republican turnout" and "demo turnout" are not real numbers. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x40162

[jsamuel]

14. Same as Florida Counties...

They voted MUCH MORE for Bush this time, inexplicably.
Notice how Grant was the reverse though.... I wonder if they were using different voting or counting methods...

New Mexico 2000

Gore Bush
Cibola 4,127 2,752
Curry 3,471 8,301
Grant 5,673 4,961
Hidalgo 839 954
Lea 3,855 10,157

New Mexico 2004

Kerry Bush
Cibola 3,969 3,428
Curry 3,541 10,649
Grant 7,020 5,974
Hidalgo 861 1,081
Lea 3,615 14,349

[amelia]

21. Nader's 2000 votes

In 2000 Nader got about 21,233 votes, and this year the Green Party and Nader totaled around 4300, which leaves around 16,000 votes left. I don't think they voted for bush, do you? These numbers aren't exact but in the general area.

[lilfroggy]

22. heh

I thought what was spooky is how on election night Bush magically jumped 10,000 and Kerry either lost some or stayed the same.