Op-Scan Florida Numbers....Seem Legit :-(

[batchdem04]

(don't shoot the messenger, I hope I am terribly wrong!)

Based on some other threads on this site, and the letters on http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/royle_florida.html , I think the FL Op-Scan numbers are legit afterall.

In 2000,53.48% of voters in those counties voted for Bush. In 2004, 57.03% voted for Bush, an increase of 3.55%. But there was a 22.38% Republican voter registration increase. Also, it seems that the majority of Democrats in these counties have voted for the opposing candidate in preceding elections.

However, I still think its highly likely that fraud did occur FL, OH, NV, etc. I think its imperative that we put an end to un-audited BBV.

www.blackboxvoting.org : I donated!

[goldengreek]

1. Thanks for that.

It's looking like our country's gone over the edge after all.

[redsoxliberal]

4. i never even knew about this

there is loads more evidence:

http://www.justanotherdumbliberal.messagemonster.com

[springhill]

23. That is just bullshit.........

It does not explain at all the difference in the exit polls for paper trails and non-paper trails or in Floridas case e-voting versus optical scan machines. It does not explain how every last state that Gore was slightly ahead in as far as the battleground states went for Bush, sometimes a turnaround as much as 6 points, outisde the margin or error, while the exit polls determined the opposite of what occurred. It does not explain how this could happen with the get-out-the vote drive and the long lines of people witing to cast their vote. Look at this county in Florida.

Baker County:

1996 - (D) 2273 (R)3684
2000 - (D) 2392 (R)5610
2004 - (D) 2180 (R)7738
Notice how the democratic vote was the lowest in the three years for 2004 whiles the republican vote skyrocketed.

Columbia County:

1996 - (D) 6691 (R)7588
2000 - (D) 7047 (R)10964
2004 - (D) 8029 (R)16753
This pattern repeats itself over and over again. I got these statistics from the Florida State Election Page.

[rooboy]

2. I assume those ballots can be re-counted manually...

if so, that's all that needs to happen.

[DuaneBidoux]

3. Well, I had gone back at liberty county and saw that pattern

and had wondered. I still think it's amazing that Shrub got as much support as he did in Miami-Dade though.

[George_S]

5. Dead link.

EDIT: Just cut the comma:

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/royle_florida.html

[batchdem04]

6. thanks..fixed it

[George_S]

7. You know what?

After looking over that, it's possible they put the op-scan machine in the lower density populations so everyone there could vote.

The voter use per machine time must be far less for the op-scan machines than it would be for the touch screens since they don't have to have access to the machine while they fill in the bubbles.

For example, if each vote takes 1 second of machine time for op-scan, and each touch screen vote took (at the least!) 1 minute of machine time, that would mean the op-scan machine could tally 60 times to voting power.

In other words, place the touch screen machines in the more populated areas to help discourage the votes. You would have to have 60 times the machines in the densely populated areas to equal the voting efficiency.

I've been wondering why the machines were distributed like they were, and that could explain it.

Is there an equal protection case here?

EDIT to add "touch screen vote"

[Blue Wally]

12. Except for the fact

That in Flordia, each county buys their own machines. The state doesn't move thewm around. Each county has an elected supervisor of elections who runs the election process then certifies the numbers to the secretary of state who just adds up the county numbers.

[George_S]

15. So maybe they were offered a deal on those...

... and the other more populated counties were offered a deal on the touch screen.

I wonder if all counties were offered the same deals. And that still doesn't answer if there were enough touch screen machines to make up the difference.

[George_S]

14. Does anyone have any stats on the number of machines...

... per capita in Florida sorted by machine type? Google is having trouble finding the figures.

In other words, the counties that used touch screen machines would have to have the same number of machines as there were booths to fill out the bubbles for op-scan machines.

In short, for it to be fair:

op-scan voting booths = touch screen machines per capita.

Does this make sense or is there flaw in the this logic?

[teach1st]

8. Also check this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=28818&mesg_id=28818

and this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2624415

[txindy]

9. Matching trends with 2000?

We're looking at fraud that extends back that far, at the very least, so, no, these aren't bad news. No surprise, either.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. In op-scan counties, you should be looking at the

absentee ballots and checking names.

[DuaneBidoux]

11. I am now convinced (after looking at Dr. Wang's site) that OpScan is legit

I had noticed early one that in one of the counties (Liberty) they had voted for Shrub overwhelmingly. And then started coming to the conclusion that it was indeed an effect of rural southern Dems who are but Dems in name supporting Shrub in large numbers.

My next question is this: How could so many exit polls be so wrong? They traditionally ARE right. There is a good article at www.TheHill.com by a Republican operative also expressing suprise and surmising that it was the media trying to suppress west coast Bush votes by calling it early for Kerry. Bush THOUGHT he was going to lose based on his own polling. Kerry thought they would win based on their internal polling.

[dansolo]

13. What was the Democratic voter registration increase?

You are conveniently leaving out one important number. And it would be rediculous to assume that voting trends from before 2004 would be identical to the newly registered voters. I find it very hard to believe that someone would register as a Democrat for this election, and then vote for Bush.

[George_S]

16. "4) There are only two cases of precincts...

... with total votes 35,000 or less for touchscreen voting."

Why does that line remind me of the machine that rolled back to zeros and mis-counted right there in Florida?

[davekriss]

17. did not see any facts

I'm curious on what you based your conclusions on. In the thread you lonk to (synapse.princeton.edu) all I see is the standard conjecture that it must've been the Dixiecrat phenomena (i.e., registered Democrats of the "Dixie" sort routinely voting Democrat locally but Republican nationally). Where are the facts to support the conjecture? One county is mentioned: What was the swing from 2000 to 2004? What about all the other optiscan counties that show huge swings toward the Republicans. The aggregate is that there were 140,000 or so more Republican votes than there are registered Republicans in these counties, requiring a 45-to-1 Republican preference amongst the Independent vote and even as high as 60% of the registered Democrats voting Republican in some of the counties. Does 2000, also a highly suspect election, support the conjecture?

[lostnfound]

18. Way too many counties had disproporionate *-vote growth -- see graph:

Please look at this graph. Anything above the line has disproportionately high *-vote growth.

Also look at Sequoia touch-screens shown in the 2nd graph, which are the only 4 counties in FL with that particular machine/software.





Sequoia - start with a 'normal' election, take 5% away from candidate A, give it to candidate B.

Rinse and repeat on 4 counties -- the ONLY 4 counties -- with the same software and same machines;
regardless of major differences in incremental voter registrations;
regardless of an urban/rural population.

[SteppingRazor]

19. That could be the case,

especially in the smaller counties. Remember, in small counties in the South, a lot of people vote Republican yet are still overwhelmingly registered Democrat. This is especially true when local politics are Democratically-dominated, as is also often the case. When it is, you get two Dems running against each other, instead of a Rep vs. a Dem., and people need to be registered Dem. to vote in the primary (i.e. to have any vote at all).

[tobybear]

20. has anyone explained why the exit polls are wrong?

I had heard that it was the small samples being used, but if that were the case, the actuals should have skewed both for and against Bush, but it appears that they all skewed heavily in favor of Bush. Why isn't anyone asking this question (outside of places like this)?

[newyawker99]

25. Hi gobearsgokerry!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Mr_Spock]

21. Yep, this has been pointed out here several times.

Guess it takes a while for the news to spread.

[NOWMDNOGWB]

22. 2000 bush by 250,000

or so in those same 52 counties and around 504,000 in 2004 so he gained over 250,000 more of an advantage there than gore ..still doesn't seem possible

[springhill]

24. It isn't possible

No way.