Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has anyone looked at these New Mexico Numbers?

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
 
AnIndependentTexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 07:11 PM
Original message
Has anyone looked at these New Mexico Numbers?
Something fishy about these numbers

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

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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastor of Deaniacs Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. By % turnout...
Do you mean MORE Repubs shgowed up than were actually registered?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
life_long_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. just wondering
are the republicans the ding-dongs or the twinkies? LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. There's something fishy about this entire election! Please someone
Edited on Thu Nov-11-04 07:33 PM by shelley806
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_controv...

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
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..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
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."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silvershadow Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. LOOK UP 2000 NUMBERS FOR THE SAME COUNTIES FIRST!!!
Make sure this doesn't become a red haring also!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. a red rabbit???
there is a spell check at the bottom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Nice netiquete.... :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liquiduniverse Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Yes, I forgot to mention, Sandoval is incomplete.
The number on the website is changing often for the last 24 hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woo Donating Member (181 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. Question...?
Edited on Fri Nov-12-04 01:40 AM by Woo
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allthatjazz Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #8
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
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....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ahimsa Donating Member (279 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yes, fishy
.. because "republican turnout" and "demo turnout" are not real numbers. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. Same as Florida Counties...
Edited on Thu Nov-11-04 09:49 PM by jsamuel
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amelia Donating Member (261 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lilfroggy Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
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.
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 Wed Sep 19th 2018, 05:46 AM
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