FL Optiscans vs. Touchscreens:Prob of 9.03% discrepancy-1 in 12.7 trillion

[TruthIsAll]

What is the probability that...

Kerry would win 51.30%-47.77% in Florida counties(3.864 mm
votes) which used touch screen computers, but lose by
42.27%-57.03% in counties where Optical scanners (3.429mm
votes) were used?

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/electionmodel_files/Florida2000Vote_26173_image001.png

In other words, what is the probability that Kerry's
TouchScreen vote (51.30%) would exceed his total vote (47.06%)
 by 4.24% due to chance alone?

Keep in mind that registration statistics are consistent
across Touchscreen and Optiscan counties, so we are NOT
comparing apples and oranges. 

Total FL counties registration by voting machine:
TouchScreen:40.89% Dem vs. 36.77% Repub.
OptiScan:   41.92% Dem vs. 38.98% Repub.

Reg   = registered voters (in millions)
DemR  = registered Democrats (%)
RepR  = registered Republicans (%)
DiffR = Demr - RepR

Votes = Total votes (millions)
DemV  = Kerry votes
RepV  = Bush votes

Reg	DemR	RepR	DiffR	Votes	DemV	RepV
Touchscreen	
5.576	40.89%	36.77%	4.12%	3.864	51.30%	47.77%

Optiscan
4.725	41.92%	38.98%	2.94%	3.420	42.27%	57.03%

Total	
10.301	41.37%	37.79%	3.58%	7.284	47.06%	52.12%
							
Assume a 1.0% Margin of error (extremely conservative):

Prob	= NORMDIST(0.513,0.4706,0.01/1.96,FALSE)

Prob	 = 7.877E-14, less than 1 in 12.7 Trillion.
 
 

[Nothing Without Hope]

1. This is very striking, TIA. Could you put it in the form of a bar graph?

That would make the point so powerfully that maybe we could publicize it more easily. Many people who WOULD be very concerned by the patterns in these data won't perceive them because they are either intimidated by tables of numbers or don't have a talent for perceiving the pattens behind numbers. (You clearly DO have this ability in spades, for which we can all be grateful!)

[TruthIsAll]

20. UPDATE: Touchscreen/Optiscan% used as weights, compared to 13047 Exit

The Touchscreens were right on target, and agreed with the
13047 Exit Poll respondents to within 0.43% for Bush (17,000
votes) and 0.31% for Kerry (12,000 votes).

The Optiscans deviated from the Bush exit poll by 8.99%
(307,000 votes). They deviated from the Kerry exit poll by
8.12% (278,000 votes)



Type	Reg	DemR	RepR	DiffR	Votes	DemV%	RepV%	DemV	RepV
T/S	5.576	40.89%	36.77%	4.12%	3.864	51.30%	47.77%	1.982	1.846
OptS	4.725	41.92%	38.98%	2.94%	3.420	42.27%	57.03%	1.446	1.950
Total	10.301	41.37%	37.79%	3.58%	7.284	47.06%	52.12%	3.428	3.796



13047	Touchscreen	3.864	votes			OPTISCAN	3.420	votes	
PARTY ID	
       Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
Dem	40.89%	9%	90%	1%	Dem	41.92%	9%	90%	1%
Rep	36.77%	92%	7%	1%	Rep	38.98%	92%	7%	1%
Ind	22.33%	44%	52%	4%	Ind	19.10%	44%	52%	4%
									
Pct	100%	47.34%	50.99%	1.67%	Pct	100%	48.04%	50.39%	1.57%

Vote	3.864	1.829	1.970	0.065	Vote	3.420	1.643	1.723	0.054
Act%	100%	47.77%	51.30%	0.925%	Act%	100%	57.03%	42.27%	0.70%

Act	3.864	1.846	1.982	0.036	Act	3.420	1.950	1.446	2.40%

Diff	       0.017	0.012	-0.029		Diff  0.307	-0.278	-0.030
	       0.43%	0.31%	-0.74%		       8.99%	-8.12%	-0.87%

[TruthIsAll]

21. The above analysis says that Kerry won FL by 221,000 votes

By 141,000 on Touchscreens and 80,000 on Optiscans

13047	Touchscreen	3.864	votes			OPTISCAN	3.420	votes	
PARTY ID	
       Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
Dem	40.89%	9%	90%	1%	Dem	41.92%	9%	90%	1%
Rep	36.77%	92%	7%	1%	Rep	38.98%	92%	7%	1%
Ind	22.33%	44%	52%	4%	Ind	19.10%	44%	52%	4%
							
Calculated	
Pct	100%	47.34%	50.99%	1.67%	Pct	100%	48.04%	50.39%	1.57%
Vote	3.864	1.829	1.970	0.065	Vote	3.420	1.643	1.723	0.054

Actual
Pct	100%	47.77%	51.30%	0.925%	Act%	100%	57.03% 42.27%	0.70%
Vote	3.864	1.846	1.982	0.036	Act	3.420	1.950	1.446	2.40%

[TruthIsAll]

22. A question for all readers of this thread...

If the touchscreen vote seems reasonable with Kerry leading by
51-47%, and the optiscan has Bush way ahead 57-42%, don't you
agree that the optiscan counties are most likely the locations
where manipulation of the vote count occurred? This is not to
say that the T/S counties were clean, but the actuals are much
more believable.  

The 13047 exit poll, which we believe is correct, is very
close to the actual results. If that is the case, why should
the optiscans be so far off, since the Party ID weights are
very similar: 

OptiScan:    Dem 42/Rep 39%
Touchscreen: Dem 41/Rep 37%

The actuals: Bush won by 368,000
The numbers: Kerry won by 221,000
That's a 589,000 turnaround, about 7% of the total 7.3mm
votes. 


13047	Touchscreen: 3.864mm votes		OPTISCAN 3.420mm votes	

PARTY ID	
        Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader		Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader
Dem	40.89%	9%	90%	1%	Dem	41.92%	9%	90%	1%
Rep	36.77%	92%	7%	1%	Rep	38.98%	92%	7%	1%
Ind	22.33%	44%	52%	4%	Ind	19.10%	44%	52%	4%
							
Calculated	
Pct	100%	47.34%	50.99%	1.67%	Pct	100%	48.04%	50.39%	1.57%
Vote	3.864	1.829	1.970	0.065	Vote	3.420	1.643	1.723	0.054

Actual
Pct	100%	47.77%	51.30%	0.925%	Act%	100%	57.03% 42.27%	0.70%
Vote	3.864	1.846	1.982	0.036	Act	3.420	1.950	1.446	.024

[LatePeriduct]

23. It depends on all sorts of factors.....

Like for instance how many were purged from the county, how many are dead there, things like that. Optiscan counties need a far higher scrutiny using real numbers.

[TruthIsAll]

24. The main point of this analysis is that the Optiscan counties...

should be an area of focus...

[dchill]

28. Indeed

IIRC, the optiscan counties were particularly suspect because they networked through tabulator PC's running the infamous GEMS software.
It is incredible to me that FL was stolen AGAIN with everybody watching - the wrong things.

[TruthIsAll]

27. Touchscreen and Optiscan Votes by County

E-Vote (touchscreen)

Kerry 51.6%	
Bush  48.0%	
Nader 0.5%

County
KV	BV	NV	Inc	KP	BP	NP

"Broward"
452360	243699	3806	56	64.64%	34.82%	0.54%
"Charlotte"
34227	44402	555	0	43.22%	56.07%	0.70%
"Collier"	
43713	83485	595	0	34.21%	65.33%	0.47%
"Hillsborough"	
213413	244606	1947	21	46.40%	53.18%	0.42%
"Indian River"
23932	36869	292	0	39.17%	60.35%	0.48%

"Lake"      
48216	 74382	659	3	39.12%	60.35%	0.53%
"Lee"	      
94365 144414	1394	0	39.29%	60.13%	0.58%
"Martin"	
30197	41350	418	1	41.96%	57.46%	0.58%
"Miami-Dade"
406099	358613	1999	54	52.97% 46.77%	0.26%
"Nassau"	
8545	23732	183	0	26.32%	73.11%	0.56%

"Palm Beach"
327698	211894	1565	88	60.56%	39.16%	0.29%
"Pasco"	 
84731	103198	1440	0	44.74%	54.50%	0.76%
"Pinellas"	
225367	225627	2401	6	49.71%	49.76%	0.53%
"Sarasota"	
88382	104630	1259	2	45.49%	53.86%	0.65%
"Sumter"	
11584	19795	248	0	36.63%	62.59%	0.78%



Optiscan:
Kerry  42.4% 
Bush	 57.1% 
Nader  0.4%

"Alachua"	
62348	47615	557	0	56.41%	43.08%	0.50%
"Baker"	        
2180	7738	22	0	21.93%	77.85%	0.22%
"Bay"	       
21058	53388	359	0	28.15%	71.37%	0.48%
"Bradford"	
3244	7553	28	0	29.97%	69.77%	0.26%
"Brevard"	
110153	152838	1196	4	41.70%	57.85%	0.45%

"Calhoun"	
2116	3780	38	0	35.66%	63.70%	0.64%
"Citrus"	
29274	39498	452	0	42.29%	57.06%	0.65%
"Clay"	       
18905	61881	258	0	23.33%	76.35%	0.32%
"Columbia"	
8029	16753	109	0	32.26%	67.31%	0.44%
"DeSoto"	
3910	5512	48	0	41.29%	58.20%	0.51%

"Dixie"	        
1959	4433	29	0	30.51%	69.04%	0.45%
"Duval"	      
158121	219251	1218	12	41.77%	57.91%	0.32%
"Escambia"	
48243	93367	545	1	33.94%	65.68%	0.38%
"Flagler"	
18574	19632	181	0	48.39%	51.14%	0.47%
"Franklin"	
2400	3472	37	0	40.62%	58.76%	0.63%

"Gadsden"	
14629	6253	54	1	69.87%	29.87%	0.26%
"Gilchrist"
2016	4934	32	0	28.87%	70.67%	0.46%
"Glades"	
1718	2443	16	0	41.13%	58.49%	0.38%
"Gulf"	  
2398	4794	40	0	33.16%	66.29%	0.55%
"Hamilton"	
2260	2792	16	0	44.59%	55.09%	0.32%

"Hardee"	
2148	5047	39	0	29.69%	69.77%	0.54%
"Hendry"	
3960	5756	24	0	40.66%	59.10%	0.25%
"Hernando"	
36521	41847	508	0	46.30%	53.05%	0.64%
"Highlands"
15346	25874	188	0	37.06%	62.49%	0.45%
"Holmes"	
1810	6410	42	0	21.91%	77.58%	0.51%

"Jackson"	
7552	12115	74	0	38.26%	61.37%	0.37%
"Jefferson"	
4134	3298	27	0	55.42%	44.22%	0.36%
"Lafayette"	
845	2460	11	0	25.48%	74.19%	0.33%
"Leon"
83830	51594	476	26	61.69%	37.96%	0.35%
"Levy"	        
6073	10408	97	0	36.63%	62.78%	0.59%

"Liberty"	
1070	1927	14	0	35.54%	64.00%	0.46%
"Madison"	
4048	4196	41	0	48.86%	50.65%	0.49%
"Manatee"	
61228	81272	681	0	42.76%	56.76%	0.48%
"Marion"	
57255	81267	649	2	41.14%	58.39%	0.47%
"Monroe"	
19649	19462	283	0	49.88%	49.40%	0.72%

"Okaloosa"	
19358	69654	372	0	21.66%	77.93%	0.42%
"Okeechobee"	
5151	6987	32	0	42.33%	57.41%	0.26%
"Orange"	
193217	192390	1141	16	49.96%	49.75%	0.30%
"Osceola"	
38617	43108	280	1	47.09%	52.57%	0.34%
"Polk"	       
85983	123532	799	5	40.88%	58.74%	0.38%

"Putnam"	
12409	18305	136	1	40.22%	59.34%	0.44%
"Santa Rosa"	
14637	51988	295	0	21.87%	77.69%	0.44%
"Seminole"	
76938	108126	570	4	41.45%	58.25%	0.31%
"St. Johns"	
26389	59178	403	0	30.70%	68.84%	0.47%
"St. Lucie"	
51816	47575	436	0	51.91%	47.66%	0.44%

"Suwannee"	
4521	11153	85	0	28.69%	70.77%	0.54%
"Taylor"	
3049	5466	45	0	35.62%	63.86%	0.53%
"Union"	        
1251	3396	16	0	26.83%	72.83%	0.34%
"Volusia"	
115319	111544	911	8	50.63%	48.97%	0.40%
"Wakulla"	
4896	6777	47	0	41.77%	57.82%	0.40%

"Walton"	
6213	17553	119	0	26.01%	73.49%	0.50%
"Washington"	
2912	7368	53	0	28.18%	71.31%	0.51%

[LatePeriduct]

2. Holy crap and give almighty....

This could be it....this could point to exactly how much purging fraud the dominionists used in Florida!!

Is there anyway to run these numbers through a data table, by precinct size only?

[LatePeriduct]

3. giving a kick

[TruthIsAll]

4. THE GRAPH

[Trillo]

5. Consider graphing Rebubs, too.

I already have using your calculated data. The contrast is striking.

It looks like a LOT of extra "phantom" votes entered the whole system.

[LatePeriduct]

6. Phantom votes from the year 2000!

Hello, break it down by region and now precinct. You see the same dead voters who get fed through and counted and other fake names are near identical to the first election.

They rigged it using previously planted results! Can't anyone do what this requires, and break down the numbers by precinct location in Florida?

[berniew1]

7. This time I think you got it wrong. Its not just about statistics, but as

assumptions and history also. The touch screen counties have very different characteristics and voting histories than the optical scan counties. The touch screen counties are all big coastal mostly urban counties(with sprawl) and a lot of tourism,etc. They have well documented switching and suppression problems in 2004 election. The optical scan counties are a few large urban or coastal counties like Duval(Jacksonville), Orange(Orlando), Brevard(Titusville/Melborne), Leon(Tallahasse), Alachua(Gainesville) and the rest are all small rural counties that have a historic conservative voting pattern in national elections. So unless you believe there has been something amiss in past elections as well as this one, the small rural county sector can't be dealt with using your statistical methods based on assumptions that Dems vote for Dems. Bay County(Panama City) and Escambia(Pensacola) are also optical scan but are in the panhandle and vote like the north florida rural counties and Alabama.

Tallahassee and Gainesville are dem majority areas with good electoral systems, Duval was the worst county from 2000 and pretty bad in 2004, Orange and Brevard appear to have also had significant problems and swings in 2004. But there is no basis I've seen for assuming a swing in the small rural(bible belt) counties.
I think your analysis is totally off base in this case. Since you don't have exit poll data for the small rural counties, the best info I know is the 2000 official vote data- which is given in my file. Are you suggesting there was a major problem with the official 2000 votes in those counties in 2000?? Its possible, but I haven't seen anyone make the case. Several of them have Dem SOEs.

See the analysis: http://www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html
and the data for each county for 2000 and 2004
http://www.flcv.com/fla04EA.html

The big urban counties have the majority of the population, but I think you have to treat the urban counties and the rural counties separately, and use different assumptions for them based on EP or history.

[LatePeriduct]

8. Bernie, his analysis isn't about the voting trends themselves....

"Duval was the worst county from 2000 and pretty bad in 2004, Orange and Brevard appear to have also had significant problems and swings in 2004. But there is no basis I've seen for assuming a swing in the small rural(bible belt) counties."

He's not trying to point out why all the conservatives vote in the 2000 election and 2004 as its put, in this region of Florida....

How I understand it, is he's instead demonstrating how the statistic of voters at the exit polls stayed the exact same from 2000 except in several specific cities..Including the same number of deceased voters who can't have voted..In those specific cities, the stats have increased only slightly.

A coup de ae't could do that but the alarming thing is its only in those cities on the graph, so his analysis is right on the money.

[berniew1]

9. I'll look at it in more detail; but all indications I've seen say most of

the swing was in the big touch screen counties, and I thought he was implying something else. The way I did the analysis makes more sense to me, but I do have the problem of having to start from a 2000 vote base that is known to have had major problems(but at least we know most of those problems).

There was no serious analysis of the small rural counties in 2000 or 2004, except for the Miami Herald recount of 3 small counties in 2004 where the SOEs didn't mind having their records gone through- ie didn't think a problem would be found. And one of those counties wasn't completed, leaving some doubts.

[berniew1]

11. I still think you are comparing apples to oranges in this case

and you can't tell it by looking at the party stats

I think Kerry likely won Florida, but for the Dems to win Florida its like in a lot of other states. The Dems have to get enough votes from the big urban counties with a lot of minority voters to overcome the historically conservative north Florida area that votes pretty strongly Republican, whatever the registration stats.


My analysis shows about an even split, as did the other researchers analyses, and likewise the Exit poll. But I think both the analyses that used the 2000 vote pattern as a base(like mine) and the exit polls were biased against Kerry. For the same reason. The major suppression of minority voters in both 2000 and 2004(hundreds of thousands affected) created a bias against Kerry in both methods.
And if you are assuming that the hundreds of thousands of minority and student votes that didn't get counted would have gotten counted in a fair election, that creates another big swing to Kerry by either method.
So what are you assuming about the large numbers who wanted to vote and should have been able to vote, but whose votes weren't counted???

[LatePeriduct]

12. Like I said, here was the problem you were missing.

"There were 110,000 overvotes in 2000.
Duval County: 30,000 double-punched cards.
Thousands of triple-punched cards in Escambia.

Sorry, Bernie, the 9% vote discrepancy between optiscans and touchscreens for virtually identical registration is too large to be dismissed as normal party switching."

The rural counties constantly being cited here, were the only counties to see the anomolies and are the same counties(or cities)to have the skewed results in which deceased people voted and double voting occurred.

Given that government data shows a number of bush voters died, and were also no longer living in the first original sample where the 2000 results came from there is clearly something wrong here.

They all belong to the same dixiecrats groups, but how many of those polled or voted are even still existing? How many in the skewed sample of the first election are even accurate results?

You would have to use more than just an EIRS.

[TruthIsAll]

10. Did you forget about Duval and Escambia in 2000?

There were 110,000 overvotes in 2000.
Duval County: 30,000 double-punched cards.
Thousands of triple-punched cards in Escambia.

Sorry, Bernie, the 9% vote discrepancy between optiscans and touchscreens for virtually identical registration is too large to be dismissed as normal party switching.

There were no cards to punch in 2004, so optical scanners were the major culprit, even more so than the touchscreens.

[berniew1]

14. think you got the wrong counties, but I'm aware of them and took them

into account to some extent, though one can't be very precise I think. The big overvotes(butterfly ballot) were in Duval, Palm Beach, Hillsboro, and Gadsden(small Dem county) that I'm aware of. I wasn't aware of such a problem in Escambia. And if you read my analysis, you will see I also pointed out that there was a major purge of supposed felons(who weren't) and supposed inactive voters that weren't and failure to complete registrations from DMV, etc. for minorities/Dems that suppressed hundreds of thousands of votes, especially in some of these counties- both in 2000 and 2004.

But I've still seen no evidence that the problem was optical scan county compilers, other than the known fraud in Volusia and Brevard in 2000 that likely cost Gore the election(along with other big bogus swings only one of which being counted correctly would have made a difference) and the Black Box Voting focus on Volusia again in 2004( with hanky panky regarding memory chips being the problem in 2000 and the alleged problem in 2004). Those are very easy to manipulate- just no firm evidence so far it happened other than the big brouhau in Volusia that is ongoing.


There were an awful lot of "machine problems" in counties like Duval and Orange and Brevard and etc. where the machines wouldn't read the votes and large numbers of votes were put in containers(some not very secure)to be counted "later". This could be easy to manipulate. Likewise the county tabulators are also easy to manipulate. I just haven't seen evidence yet it happened or is being looked at except in Volusia.

The biggest problems the EIRS data pointed out were hundreds of thousands who tried to register who weren't allowed to vote, hundreds of thousands who tried to get absentees but couldn't, major polling place changes in minority precincts and dirty tricks and misinformtion by officials regarding proper polling place preventing minorities from having their vote counted, large inapropriate voter roll purges, irregularities by poll workers regarding ID requirements, etc.
and touch screen switching. But I don't think TIAs method deals with most of these. I'm aware there could also have been big compiler irregularities also(other than switching) that is what I think TIA is mainly implying. but I think there was enough swing in the categories I summarized above to account for the swing, without even getting into whether there was also compiler fraud or glitches. (some glitches were caught, likely not all)

[Sancho]

13. Total votes....

In 2000, Pinellas county:
Bush 184823
Gore 200629

In 2004, Pinellas county:
Bush 225686
Kerry 225460

There was a subtantial drop in Nader, etc.

So Rep. picked up 40,000 and Dem. 25,000 in a county that grew in school age populations, minority, etc....what really, really makes me suspicious was that Castor beat Marinez 52% to 44%; a new school tax was approved 63% to 35%!

It just doesn't make sense for so many new people (mostly Dem. because of the new motor/votor) to vote for Castor and new taxes and Bush?!?! How did Bush pick up 15,000 more votes while new registrations are favoring Dems...I think the Senate race is closer to reality here...and the urban/rural/costal argument doesn't explain such discrepancies.

[berniew1]

15. But there seemed to be more obvious swings in touch screen counties like P

Pinellas, where I agree things look very strange. The Repubs lost registered voters in Pinellas while Dems gained;
yet there was a big swing in votes to Repub that was inconsistent with other voting patterns as you say.

but similar pattern also happened in many of the other big touch screen counties, like Broward, Palm Beach, Dade, Hillsboro, Pasco, Sarasota.


But the only similar trend I saw in optical scan counties was in the
big coastal/urban counties that I listed previously.

Of course, the EIRS system wasn't active in the rural counties so there really has been no real analysis of what happened there.

[berniew1]

16. I'd like to talk to you; or interact directly about Pinellas

send me a personal email on contact page

[Sancho]

17. hmmmm....I'm so new it won't let me send email...sorry...

[berniew1]

18. here's how to contact me

[email protected]

[LatePeriduct]

19. kick

[autorank]

26. Sancho, Welcome to DU!!!! We need you!!!

:hi:

[TruthIsAll]

29. I'll match the adjacent comment....

.

[TruthIsAll]

25. Another exit poll mystery...

/

[autorank]

30. Here we go. This is compelling. My favorite line is bellow. Thank you.

"Keep in mind that registration statistics are consistent
across Touchscreen and Optiscan counties, so we are NOT
comparing apples and oranges. "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the linchpin of the argument. Since registration is consistent, you don't need to do registration corrections...or are there going to be all sorts of caveats by the "academic debaters." I don't really care what they say based on recent history here

This is a BOMBSHELL


NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

And, let's contact the DNC and show them this. It's about time they get going on this.

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

[intensitymedia]

31. Florida - the Heart of Darkness ! n/t

[autorank]

32. "...the horror, the horror..."

Florida elections 2000, 2004: it's the "darkness reaching out for the darkness.

Thank you Jeb, Ms. Harris, and the rest of the crew that give that great state a bad name.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

[kster]

33. KICK.NT