Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New analysis of California data - backs up Madsen's claims - READ IT!

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
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 04:22 AM
Original message
New analysis of California data - backs up Madsen's claims - READ IT!
I did a bunch of research on the numbers from most of the big counties in California and noticed some interesting trends.

1) Athough I am not including any data from Northern California here, I would say that most of the Northern counties in California look "correct." The number of Bush votes did increase due to high turnout, but Democratic votes increased by more, so Bush's OVERALL PERCENTAGE either stayed the same or went down in most of the Democratic strongholds (Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Alameda County, etc.). Now many of these Northern counties use touch screen voting, but if there was any rigging in California, it appears at least at first glance, not to have taken place here.

2) In the Southern California counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura counties, Bush's overall percentage of the electorate increased rather sizeably from 2000 to 2004. But Republican registrations were up only slightly more than Democratic registrations in most of these counties since the last election (2000). In Los Angeles county, both Democratic and Republican registrations were down a bit from 2000, which I find incredibly odd.


Here's the data: (any indications of changes in percentage reflect 2004 versus 2000)

REGISTERED VOTERS:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY (2000)
Total registered voters - 634,126
Republicans - 298,522
Democrats - 232,668
Ind. - 70,260
Other - 32,676

RIVERSIDE COUNTY (2004)
Total registered voters - 766,357 (+20.85)
Republicans - 361,803 (+21.03%)
Democrats - 266,238 (+14.43%)
Ind. - 109,947 (+56.49%)
Other - 28,369 (-13.18%)

Presidential Results - RIVERSIDE COUNTY (2000):
Bush - 231,955
Gore - 202,576
Nader - 11,678
Other - 4,918

Presidential Results - RIVERSIDE COUNTY (2004): (E-Voting Touch Screen; Seqouia AVC Edge, Paper Trail Unkown)
Bush - 322,473 (+39.02%)
Kerry - 228,806 (+12.94%)
All Others - 5,603 (-66.24%)


REGISTERED VOTERS:
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (2000)
Total Registered Voters - 691,548
Democrats - 294,504
Republicans - 281,088
Ind. - 80,935
Other - 35,021

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (2004)
Total Registered Voters - 727,138 (+5.15%)
Democrats - 281,237 (-5.5%)
Republicans - 310,411 (+10.43%)
Ind. - 103,524 (+27.91%)
Other - 31,966 (-8.8%)

Presidential Results - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (2000)
Bush - 221,757
Gore - 214,749
Nader - 11,775
Other - 6,612

Presidential Results - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (2004) (Voting Method: E-voting Touch Screen Sequoia AVC Edge, Paper Trail Unknown)
Bush - 289,306 (+30.46%)
Kerry - 227,789 (+6.07%)
All Others - 5,682 (-69.1%)


REGISTERED VOTERS:
ORANGE COUNTY (2000)
Total Registered Voters - 1,342,746
Republicans - 660,561
Democrats - 431,695
Ind. - 190,950
Other - 59,540

ORANGE COUNTY (2004)
Total Registered Voters - 1,495,824 (+11.4%)
Republicans - 724,260 (+9.64%)
Democrats - 452,694 (+4.86%)
Ind. - 258,857 (+35.56%)
Other - 60,013 (+0.7%)

Presidential Results - ORANGE COUNTY (2000)
Bush - 541,299
Gore - 391,819
Nader - 26,833
Other - 10,954

Presidential Results - ORANGE COUNTY (2004) (E-voting Hart Intercivic E Slate - Paper Trail Unknown)
Bush - 641,832 (+18.57%)
Kerry - 419,239 (+7.07%)
All Others - 12,225 (-67.6%)


REGISTERED VOTERS:
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (2000)
Total Registered Voters - 4,075,037
Democrats - 2,168,085
Republicans - 1,132,380
Ind. - 578,522
Other - 196,050

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (2004)
Total Registered Voters - 3,972,738 (-2.51%)
Democrats - 2,016,280 (-7.01%)
Republicans - 1,071,615 (-5.37%)
Ind - 706,049 (+22.04%)
Other - 178,794 (-8.8%)

Presidential Results - LOS ANGELES COUNTY (2000)
Gore - 1,710,505
Bush - 871,930
Nader - 83,731
Other - 28,988

Presidential Results - LOS ANGELES COUNTY (2004) (Voting Equipment: Opti-Scan - Central Count - "Inkavote" machine; Software and Firmware Unknown)
Kerry - 1,907,736 (+11.53%)
Bush - 1,076,225 (+23.4%)
All Others - 37,686 (-66.6%)


REGISTERED VOTERS:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY (2000)
Total Registered Voters - 1,411,672
Republicans - 578,391
Democrats - 510,319
Ind. - 234,736
Other - 88,226

SAN DIEGO COUNTY (2004)
Total Registered Voters - 1,513,300 (+7.2%)
Republicans - 605,974 (+4.77%)
Democrats - 524,386 (+2.76%)
Ind. - 310,415 (+32.24%)
Other - 72,525 (-17.8%)

Presidential Results - SAN DIEGO COUNTY (2000)
Bush - 475,736
Gore - 437,666
Nader - 33,979
Other - 11,253

Presidential Results - SAN DIEGO COUNTY (2004) (Voting Equipment: Optiscan - Precinct-Based; Diebold Accuvote-OS)
Bush - 596,033 (+25.29%)
Kerry - 526,437 (+20.28%)
All Others - 11,114 (-75.4%)


REGISTERED VOTERS:
VENTURA COUNTY (2000)
Total Registered Voters - 387,075
Republicans - 161,606
Democrats - 150,396
Ind. - 53,722
Other - 21,351

VENTURA COUNTY (2004)
Total Registered Voters - 398,652 (+2.99%)
Republicans - 163,742 (+1.32%)
Democrats - 152,825 (+1.62%)
Ind. - 63,384 (+17.99%)
Other - 18,701 (-12.42%)

Presidential Results - VENTURA COUNTY (2000)
Bush - 136,173
Gore - 133,258
Nader - 10,235
Other - 3,026

Presidential Results - VENTURA COUNTY (2004) (Voting Equipment: Punch Card; Sequoia Datavote)
Bush - 160,314 (+17.73%)
Kerry - 148,859 (+11.71%)
All Others - 3,736 (-71.83%)

So, in looking at the data from these six very populous counties, we can see that among registered voters, there seems to have been a very slight uptick in registrations among Republicans when compared with Democrats. Also, there has been a rather large surge in registrations among Independents and a decrease in some of the smaller party registrations.

Clearly, when looking at the presidential results data, the thing that jumps out at you the most is the fact that Bush got a very significant boost in the Southern California counties that have touch-screen voting.

Ventura and San Diego counties didn't change all that much from 2000, whilst Los Angeles saw a decent bump for Bush that I don't quite understand. However, there were many Democrats in my precinct who were mysteriously missing from the roster when they showed up to vote. I've never seen that before in my ten years of voting in Los Angeles county. My name wasn't on the roster either, although I'm an Independent. Additonally, they combined my precinct with two others and put us in a brand new location which was difficult to find (none of which makes any sense at all).

Here are the overall percentages of turnout among registered voters:
2000 2004 % CHANGE
Los Angeles 66.14% 76.06% +9.92%
Orange 72.31% 71.75% -0.56%
Riverside 71.14% 72.67% +1.53%
San Bernardino 69.68% 71.90 +2.22

San Diego 67.91% 74.91% +7.00%
Ventura 73.03% 78.49% +5.46%

Do you notice anything strange about these numbers? Once again, it's the touch-screen counties that seem odd. Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties all show a tiny change in turnout from 2000 and 2004 while the other counties show a healthy increase.

If the general hypothesis is that touch-screen counties are exhibiting significant anomalies over other counties, these figures definitely bolster that line of thought.

Tomorrow, I'll have time to present data on the Northern California counties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 04:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
econut Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. I need a new thread - Madsen's latest article is posted - Must Read
Well folks we are gonna be in for a wild ride!

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120604Mads...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdmccur Donating Member (622 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. I am at a loss for words...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
31. Hi econut!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 06:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. What I would like to see
is some docu that backs up "power outages", early closings of polls for "security reasons" or "broken machines", and the like. Specifically, in Riverside County. Anyone found anything like this there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I don't know if we necessarily need that, because...
my feeling is that the machines were already fixed in advance to pad the votes for Bush to give him a comfortable margin of victory in the popular vote. The lockdowns and power outages elsewhere were necessary to to do this as well, I suppose, but specifically in Ohio, it was absolutely necessary to deliver an electoral victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Here's a thread about a lockdown in Riverside County but
it's from a March 2004 election. I was thinking we would find something for November 2004 but maybe Madsen was thinking of the bigger picture?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Razorback_Democrat Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Kick! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Razorback_Democrat Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Report on Riverside Outages and others
Edited on Mon Dec-06-04 12:24 PM by Razorback_Democrat
Sounds like mostly smooth voting, but;

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20041103-14...

"Voters in Upland and Redlands also reported power failures that led some to ask for paper ballots.

Computers in Newport Beach and Laguna Beach had similar outages, while problems in Riverside County caused a delay of at least an hour in counting votes."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. That's strange
In Riverside County March 2004 election there was some problem that caused about an hour delay in counting and now the article you cite talks about basically the same thing happening in November 2004.

I wonder which it is - did the report from March 2004 get accidentally reported as if it happened in November 2004, or is this standard procedure that they need to stop the counting for about an hour during each election so they can put the fix in?

See my post #6 for link to the March 2004 incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Razorback_Democrat Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It is strange
sounds like someone needs to get a hold of Michelle Townsend who quit her job as registrar in Riverside County after the March 04 fiasco.

She may have something to say.

Also, I think these are two different occurrences being reported, the one in March, and then the power outages in November.

An hour delay, I wonder if there were "technicians" typing on a keyboard in the elections counting office in November as well?

This story has got to have legs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
34. Townsend - I doubt she'll be talking with US anytime soon!
She quit under pressure, to "spend more time with her family."

There were all sorts of anomalies and conflicts of interest -- I'd sure look at Riverside very closely.

Townsend was also one of the very first to loudly beat the drums for the electronic paperless voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Gee, there were "problems" in Orange, San Berdo, and Riverside counties -
the exact same counties where I believe Bush's vote was padded the most.

Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dolphyn Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #8
28. Madsen specifically mentioned Riverside
as a likely fraud location, in his interview on
KPFT's Sunday Monitor program, yesterday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lthuedk Donating Member (551 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. I believe Riverside didn't allow the media to examine the counting.
George might have the specifics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chorti Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. LA used touch screen too
for the early voting - and their machines were not tested by the state unlike the other 10 touch-screen counties. I'm still trying to find out the manufacturer.

Riverside had the greatest shift toward Bush of any CA county, with the exception of Kings county. Riverside also did not allow the state to take the memory cards from the touch screen machines on the night of the elections when the state did its random testing on all the machines. Instead they overnighted them the next day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Cool. Is there an article that corroborates this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Razorback_Democrat Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. kicking it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. Thanks for this.
It seemed the proposition votes were fishy too.

I wonder if it's of any consequence that Ashcroft supposedly sent DoJ agents to Ventura, San Diego, and San Benito Counties.

Also, does this jive with the four or five CA counties that Madsen mentioned in his emails?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Do you have a supporting article for this? We need to send this..
directly to Wayne Madsen and Cliff Arnebeck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Yeah. shraby posted it a week or so ago.
Edited on Mon Dec-06-04 03:01 PM by Ojai Person
I sent it to the international monitors. Please send it to Arnebeck and Madsen.

It needs to be widely known.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/politics/comments.php?i...

On edit: Just looked at the article and saw the Ash was also sending "Civil Rights Division" attorneys and staff to Orange and Imperial Counties. Hmmmm. I wonder if this has anything to do with *'s urgent ousting of Ms. Berry, head of Civil Rights Dept.(?) for 26 years, and loud critic of Florida 2000 voting irregularities, who got Congress to pay attention (what little attention they did pay). TeamStealAmerica was insistent her contract ended 12/5, not, as she thought, 1/21/05.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. Thanks! I just sent it to Arnebeck and Madsen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
november3rd Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
19. get the code
somebody has to get the machines, the software, the code and scrutinize it beside the poll logs and voting results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. "back up Madsen's claims"
lol!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
22. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
23. Great find, for some reason Sequoia seems
to pop up in many posts, too.
On the post Why Green Party decided not ask for recount in Nevada, it was again, Sequoia. On top of that it said "PRIVATELY OWNED", and they would have to call in the tec's.
Do we own the machines in CA?

Also, another thing. I was checking on these Optical Scan machines, how and when in the tallying process they are being used.
I can not find the link at the moment, but I dowloaded the Election Pollworker Manual from the lavote.net site.

In there it says under Poll Closing proceedure among others:

Two computer cards, the Precinct Ballot Log (you no longer need to sign it or enter any totals)
and the ROV Card should already be in your Red Box. Place them on top of your ballots.

and so on. My question is the Inkadot does not seem to be in any way electronic. Reading the set-up, the "computer cards", don't seem to be doing anything at anytime, not even at closing. It seems they never leave the red box.

Is it possible these cards are just sent along to each precinct, with pre-programmed info of that particular precinct (maybe voter roll) to facillitate later tallying of the centralized tabulation?

Would anyone know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
24. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-04 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
25. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrat Dragon Donating Member (699 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
27. BIG KICK!
kicking, kicking, kicking :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. Hi Democrat Dragon!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharman Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
29. By George
I think you've got it.

SoCal may be Republican, but I do not think this is where Rove found his 4MM fundamentalists. Pretty damn good for a state Bushie didn't even campaign in
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
30. Comments on these results please
BEVERLY HILLS
TOTAL PRECINCTS 24
PRES AND VICE PRES
JOHN F KERRY DEM 6,713 GEORGE W BUSH REP 5,031

UNITED STATES SENATOR
BARBARA BOXER DEM 7,645 BILL JONES REP 2,712

30TH CONGRESS DISTRICT
HENRY A WAXMAN DEM 7,421 VICTOR ELIZALDE REP 2,696

23RD STATE SENATE DISTRICT
SHEILA JAMES KUEHL DEM 6,077 LEONARD M LANZI REP 2,782

42ND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
PAUL KORETZ DEM 6,688 PAUL M FREDRIX REP 2,918
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
33. Found a Mark Crispin Miller blog post about 2003 CA irregularities
This was part of Madsen's theory, that the 2003 CA Gov recall election was used as a warmup exercise by election riggers for the 2004 election.

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com /
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IRREGULARITIES IN CALIFORNIA RACE!!

Long-shot candidates do startlingly well in Tulare County

DIEBOLD MACHINES YIELD FISHY RESULTS!!


My friend in South Carolina writes:

I ran a number crunch of CA counties that use Diebold
machines to cast/count votes and found some weird
figures that show a skim of votes from top candidates
to people who were unlikely to affect the outcome. I
did my hand calculator work on the California election
results (from the secretary of state's site) when 96%
of precincts had reported. The website showed:

Counties using Diebold Touchscreens:
Alemeda, Plumas

Counties using Diebold Optiscan:
Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity,
Tulare.

There were a total of 1,403,375 votes cast in these
counties combined. The CA total was 7,842,630 at this
stage of the count. Thus 17.89% of all the state votes
were cast/counted on Diebold equipment.

I had earlier noticed some lower order candidates
(ones who couldn't affect the result) were getting
unusually large numbers of votes in Tulare county. I
decided to test to see if the these and other 'fringe'
candidates might be used to receive skimmed votes in
other Diebold counties.

Method:
I added all the votes cast/counted on Diebold
equipment for each candidate and expressed it as a
percentage of their total votes cast state wide. The
following table lists: Candidate name, votes counted
for them in Diebold counties, CA state total votes
counted for that candidate and what percentage of that
candidate's total votes were counted in Diebold
counties.

It looks like, as one might expect, at the top of the
list as if there is a slight variance from an even
state wide distribution. However many 'lower ticket'
candidates have vote totals that ONLY correlate with
the use of Diebold equipment! I have included some
names chosen at random from the result list that show
that not all lower order candidates were used to
receive skimmed votes. Note that Diebold's counties
are spread geographically over the whole of
California.

I have checked background on the skewed result
candidates and they are not residents of the counties
where they got very high percentage results. In one
case, Palmieri, the candidate was surprised to hear
about Tulare county (I emailed him) and had not been
there nor had family or friends there. In fact, his
platform was "Don't vote for me." He described this
vote pattern as "strange."

State total 7,842,630.
Cast in Diebold counties 1,403,375
17.89% of the total votes cast.

Schwarzenegger 581,145 3,552,787 16.36%

Bustamante 447,008 2,379,740 18.78%

McLintock 186,923 979,234 19.08%

Camejo 39,199 207,270 18.9%

Huffington 7,498 42,131 17.79%

Ueberoth 3365 21378 15.74%

Flynt 2384 15010 15.88%

Coleman 1869 12443 15.02%

Simon 1351 7648 17.66%

Palmieri 2542 3717 68.3%

Louie 598 3198 18.7%

Kunzman 1957 2133 91.75%

Roscoe 325 1941 16.7%

Sprague 1026 1576 65.10%

Macaluso 592 1504 39.36%

Price 477 1011 47.18%

Quinn 220 433 50.8%

Martorana 165 420 39.28%

Gosse 60 419 14.3%

Conclusion
Based on the very unlikely distribution of votes for
some candidates (a meteor hit my car twice this week
sort of odds) a hand count of the affected counties to
compare with the machine reported count should be
done. This would show that the machines had been
tampered with to alter the results. As we already
know, it is not possible to audit touchscreen machines
because Diebold refuse to allow printing of a ballot
to be placed in a box as a back up for use in just
such an apparent tampering with votes.

For those who are unsure of figures:

California is huge and has a population similar to
many European nations. Lower order candidates had
little or no ability to spread any sort of message to
parts of the state beyond their own home and/or where
they have previously lived. One would expect some of
the 'fringe' candidates to do well in their home
county and then to have a very even distribution
across the rest of the state. That is not the case. In
Diebold counties (those who use machines made by
Diebold, a corporation that supports George Bush) the
results are skewed towards low scoring candidates by
unbelievably large amounts.

The probability of scoring twice the expected average
county % could charitably be construed as the upper
limit of the possible. Some candidates exceed that
figure in Diebold counties by a four or five fold
margin. If you have done statistics, you know that is
so far beyond what might be expected that you would
reject it as defective data. If it happened to one
candidate in this election, I would be surprised but
might accept it. There are a large number of
candidates who have this same systematic pattern of
receiving skimmed votes.

The California recall shows Diebold trying to affect
the election outcome by moving votes from high ranked
candidates to low ranked candidates.

By doing this, Diebold keep the total number of votes
cast constant but rob some candidate of their votes.
Before anyone makes this a partisan issue - it could
be a Republican victim next time.


# posted by mark @ 11:08 PM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Yeah...
...I figured the Recall was fixed, but I thought it had more to do with Time magazine putting only one of over 100 candidates for governor on the cover of its magazine just before the election-- (Guess who?)--and Larry King and them favoring the same candidate with mutlimillion dollar hours of free TV commercials, in an unbecomingly rushed 6-week campaign period in which the other 100+ candidates had no chance whatsoever at comparable visibility.

Now it looks like it was actually a multi-pronged approach to get Ken Lay's buddy in place before Californians demanded the return of their $10 billion stolen budget surplus.

They were taking no chances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geo Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
35. Hi ClintCooper2003!
Hi ClintCooper2003,

You're very correct in raising questions about the California numbers, but I wouldn't dismiss the northern numbers to quickly. Especially in Alameda and surrounding counties there are surface trends that don't quite make sense, and seem to parallel reports in the EIRC database. If you attribute most green votes for Kerry this round in these areas, and then figure that most undecideds will likely break for Kerry in Alameda in particular... well, you get the point. We had some remarkable efforts in that county that should have pummeled Bush at the polls. When you factor in the 2000 greens that voted Kerry, he was hardly slapped on the wrist. Bush's Alameda margin should have definitely been lower. And look at the machine issues and the news from that area! 200 precincts had serious computer malfunctions during the primaries and these are the same pieces of equipment that was used on Nov. 4th! And it doesn't stop there.

I've been digesting data from our State the last couple weeks and noticed roughly the same trend you did, although I see just as much reason to audit Alameda as Riverside. :) :)

The real fun is when we get to the precinct level data. If you are from California please check in with the "Project California" Part 2 thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The good thing about them trying this nonsense here is that is they did we will catch them or catch them trying to hide. California's sunshine laws are amazing, and with the passage of Prop. 59, we could be in unprecedented territory in what we can ask for in access to records and information from our government. The CPRA (California Public Records Act) just got turbo-charged! :)

Who knows what we'll find when we audit, but at least here we know we will find whatever it is. :) :)

Warmly,

George
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 Thu Sep 20th 2018, 07:16 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