Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Election Fraud Menu: Apples, Oranges and Buckeyed peas

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
glengarry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 05:42 PM
Original message
The Election Fraud Menu: Apples, Oranges and Buckeyed peas
Edited on Mon May-07-07 06:40 PM by glengarry
The 2004 Stolen Election Big Three: FL, OH, NY.

BushCo needed BOTH Ohio and Florida for their electoral votes. If he lost just one, he would lose the electin. So he absolutely needed to steal the oranges and buckeyed peas. In light of that, did you really expect that Rove would play fair?

If they could lie to take us into war, they would certainly steal the election in order to continue to return those dividends to the war-profiteers.

But there was no way that Bush would win NY. That's OK, because BushCo knew it's apples were ripe for padding the popular vote "mandate". They didn't want a repeat of 2000 when Gore won the popular vote. And even if BushCo stole 300,000 NY votes, Kerry would still win in a 58-40% lanslide, so who would notice? Surely not the media.

Who would ever question that Kerry's True NY Vote was close to 63-36%? After all, the media and the naysaers claim that the NY exit poll which Kerry won by 63-36% is bogus. Only in the Ukraine can they be relied upon. Ask Colin Powell.

The 4% discrepancy accounts for 600,000 votes, a full 20% of the Bush 3 million "margin". Consider this. Gore won NY in 2000 by 60-35-4% with Nader getting the 4%. On 2004, Kerry won 3/4 of returning Nader voters. You do the math.
.......

Florida

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#Florida

Touch Screens vs. Optical Scanners

Consider Florida’s implausible vote count by machine type and party registration. In 2000, Bush “won” by 547 official recorded votes. Given Gore’s 70% share of 180,000 uncounted under/over votes, he would have won by at least 60,000 votes had they been counted. In 2004, Bush “won” by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin. But the Democrats had a 41- 37% registration advantage in Touch Screen (TS) counties and a 42-39% edge in Optical Scan (OS) counties. Kerry won TS counties (3.86mm votes) by 51-47%, but Bush won OS counties (3.43mm votes) by a whopping 57-42%. Kerry’s low vote shares in the three most heavily populated Democratic TS counties (Palm Beach, Broward, Dade) are highly suspect. Florida voter registration by party is virtually the same in TS and OS counties. TS county vote share matched the 12:22am NEP to within 0.43% for Bush and 0.31% for Kerry. OS county share deviated by 9.0% for Bush (307,000 votes) while the Kerry discrepancy was -8.1% (278,000).

Four different models indicate that Kerry won Florida. The first was based on voting machine type (optical scanners and touch screens) and used 2004 NEP “Party ID” vote shares with party registration percentage weights. Kerry won by 50.7-47.7%, a 221,000 vote margin. The second was based on uncounted (1%) and switched vote (6.9%) assumptions applied to the 2004 recorded vote. Kerry won by an identical 221,000 votes. In a third calculation based on 12:22am NEP vote shares with weights adjusted to the Florida 2000 recorded vote, Kerry is a 52.6-46.7% winner. In a fourth calculation, based on uncounted (3%) and switched vote (7%) assumptions applied to the recorded vote, Kerry is a 51.3-48.2% winner. Assuming that Kerry won 70,000 of 96,000 Nader 2000 votes (based on his 71% NEP share), he had a built-in 100,000 vote advantage on Election Day … assuming all the votes would be counted. The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry winning by 50-47%. Assuming a 1.0% margin of error, the probability is 1 in 12.7 trillion that Kerry's total TS county vote share would exceed his total Florida share by 4.2%


New York

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#NewYork

Naysayers cherry-picked the final NY pre-election poll (Kerry won by 59-40) which closely matched the 58.5-40.2 recorded vote to support their argument that the pre-election polls did not match the exit polls. They claimed that the NY pre-election poll was more accurate than the exit poll (Kerry 62.75-Bush 35.35- Other 1.9). But this implies that the recorded vote was not miscounted and that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush- clearly impossible. The 2000 recorded vote was Gore 60.5 - Bush 35.4 - Nader 4.1. According to the 12:22am NEP, Kerry won Nader 2000 voters by 71-21%; 10% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected.

Adjusting the NEP weights based on the NY 2000 recorded vote, and using 12:22am NEP vote shares the adjusted vote becomes Kerry 60.8-Bush 38.1%, well within the 2.6% NY exit poll margin of error for 1452 respondents. But Kerry’s vote share was 10% higher in NY than it was nationwide. Adjusting Kerry’s NEP Voted 2000 vote shares to plausible NY levels, Kerry wins by 62.7-36.3%, matching the exit poll. A sensitivity analysis shows that if Kerry won 91-95% of NY Gore voters and 54-62% of those who did not vote in 2000, his NY vote share ranges from 60.5-63.7%.

A third analysis, based on uncounted and switched votes added to the recorded vote, indicates that Kerry won NY by 62.8-35.8%. The analysis assumes that 2% of total votes cast were uncounted (75% to Kerry) and 7% were switched from Kerry to Bush. The uncounted vote assumption is lower than the 2.74% national average since NY uses lever voting machines. The 7% switched vote assumption reflects the national result based on the 12:22am Exit poll adjusted for feasible weights.

The NY analysis illustrates another flaw in the naysayer argument. The typical pre-election state poll has a 4% margin of error (600 respondents); the corresponding exit poll has a 2-3% MoE, depending on the number of respondents. Therefore, a 4% discrepancy between the pre-election and exit poll is not unusual. It’s also an established fact that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls. But as we have shown, it’s a moot point since the true NY vote, adjusted for plausible weights and vote shares, matched the exit poll. Furthermore, the weighted average of 51 state pre-election polls, adjusted for undecided voters, also matched the weighted average exit poll to within 1%. Once again: It’s the Law of Large Numbers taking effect.


Ohio

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#Ohio

They argued that the Final Ohio exit poll does not indicate fraud. But they ignored the massive documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, apart from voter disenfranchisement. And two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. Kerry won the 12:22am Ohio exit poll Gender demographic (1963 respondents) by 52.06-47.94%, but lost the 2:06pm Final (2020) by 50.94-48.59%. In the Final, the vote shares and weights were changed in favor of Bush to match the miscounted Ohio recorded vote. This was just like the final 2pm NEP in which vote shares and weights were changed from the 12:22am timeline to match the miscounted National vote. Two models confirmed that Kerry won Ohio. The first was based on 12:22am NEP vote shares with weights adjusted to the Ohio 2000 recorded vote. Kerry was the 51.74-48.26% winner, within 0.32% of the exit poll. The second was based on uncounted (3%) and switched vote (6.15%) assumptions applied to the recorded vote. Kerry was the 52.6-47.4% winner. An exhaustive statistical study of actual ballots in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) indicated that 6.15% of Kerry’s votes were switched.



Using the original 12:22am weights for the following demographics, it would have been necessary to inflate the Bush vote shares to implausible levels. So they were changed in favor of Bush, to minimize the increase in vote shares .

-First-time voters: Of the 14% who were first-time voters, 55% were for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 47% of the other 86%?

-When Decided: Of the 21% who decided in the month prior to the election, 62% voted for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 45% of the other 79% who decided before October 1? Were there any pre-October polls in which Bush led by 10%?

-Party ID: Weights changed from 38D/35R to 35D/40R, a 7.9% shift. With the original 38/35 weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote; he had 8% at 12:22am.

-Ideology: Liberal/Conservative weights changed from 21/32 to 19/34, a 9.5% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 23% of Liberals to match the recorded vote; he had 13% at 12:22am.

-Voted for Senate: Democratic/Republican weights changed from 43/57 to 36/64, a 16.3% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 14% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate; he had 7% at 12:22am.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Kerry-Bush Vote-Switching after the Voting and before the Counting in OHIO
Edited on Mon May-07-07 06:47 PM by L. Coyote
is an issue to address in OHIO.

One of the GREEAT things about descriptive statistics is ZERO margin of error. This avoids all the debates about polling accuracy, methods, etc. PLUS, zero margin of error is just that!!

With OHIO punch card ballots (3/4 of the vote) and no precinct marks on the ballots, switching ballots from a precinct where the punch was a Kerry vote to a precinct where that punch counts as a Bush vote is only detectable using descriptive statistical analysis of the results. Recounting does nothing. And, guess what, there is a high percentage shift evidenced in this analysis, such that precinct ballot swapping seems the only explanation:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

QUOTES:

"In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts 6.15% when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

"Wrong-precinct voting can occur in several ways. Voters can use their own precinct's ballot at another precinct's voting machine. Additionally, the outcome can be altered if ballots are switched to a different precinct after the voting and before the counting. This study deals with the outcome of and evidence of cross-voting and does not determine which of these methods altered the results. Wrong-precinct voting and ballot switching have the same effect, and herein cross-voting and vote-switching refers to both possibilities."

"I define "vote-switching" as major candidate cross-voting. One major candidate cross-vote changes the election margin by two votes; as one major candidate loses a vote the other gains the cross-vote. Vote-switching is distinguished from cross-voting because impact on results varies depending on for which candidate cross-votes are counted. Vote-switching results when the two major candidates are collocated in the same ballot order position, either from ballot switching between such precincts or voters cross-voting at such locations."

MUCH MORE .............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brmdp3123 Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Buckeyed peas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The Buckeye State n/t
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 Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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