Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Election fraud analysis evaluation

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
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 12:45 PM
Original message
Election fraud analysis evaluation
As previously advertised--http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

First off, several involved in this enterprise have been impatient with me. Somehow this went from a collective effort to being mine alone. I've been away on vacation, recieved a new duty statement when I returned to work, have been doing voter education for my union, have been getting the ranch ready for spring, and needed some lurker time last week to get back up to speed--my apologies.

I think that the brainstorming hit a snag (which I suspected would be the case--folks here are generally conditioned to tear an argument apart, rather than augment it) but I have several observations that may muddy the waters a bit further:

1. The use of linear arguments ran smack dab into the fact that the various factors for election fraud are best addressed as a reticulation, and the categories I proposed were not all that precise. The fact, as both Febble and Land Shark (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ) seem to present, is that a cafeteria approach to fraud seems possible to evade forensic detection by statistical measures. One can critique LS's specific arguments without necessarily refuting his main point (e.g. the models, mechanisms, pathways thingie of mine and Popper)as ongoing new mechanisms can be proposed (my only criticism is that the method appears too have too much hind sight for a one shot deal, but I am not an insider statistician, so what would I know).

2. No one seems interested in addressing the various motives for why fraud would occur. This is somewhat of a hidden assumption (although comment 33 addressed this head on) that I think needs much closer analysis, and may explain why we cannot detect the deception mathematically. One of the things I was intrigued by early on was on Mad Cow Prod News(definately tin hat)(http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6912004.html ;http://www.madcowprod.com/11242004.html ;http://www.madcowprod.com/12092004.html ;http://www.madcowprod.com/12142004.html "Curiously, gambling was the burning issue on the ballot in state elections at the same exact time") that put forth the possible argument that the primary objective of vote hijacking in Florida may have been to pass the gambling initiative. I am wondering if a similar argument can be made with Ohio for the gay marriage initiative. In other words what if it is not the Republican party behind it, but their fellow travelers?

3. Elsewhere it is argued that votes were stolen from the Kerry column and put into the Third party column. This vote migration has some peculiar resonance about it that I think needs exploring. Why are we confident that votes for Gore were not moved into the Nader column in 2000? What was the stake for the Greens, Libertarians and Nader to explore recounts throughout the election in 2004? Were votes stolen from their column (just the opposite for what's being argued)?

4. What is the precise relationship between the exit polls and voter suppression? Here in California I recall explicit mention of long lines on the national radiocast for CBS (at about 1600PST), would such reporting suppress both democratic and republican turnout? Was this known locally in Ohio or Florida?

So pick your particular fact(iod)or argument, and give some argument for its strenghts or weaknesses. Lets try to avoid the snarkiness of another recent thread (and which I seem to excel at even when not trying--see comment 31!); and also keep within the informal rules I laid out in the previous thread.

Mike

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Village Idiot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Are you kidding?
No one seems interested in addressing the various motives for why fraud would occur

WTF???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No, prevailing assumption is it is the WH re-electing Bush
I am specifically referring to the previous thread. What I am getting at is that if we look to whose motives are in place, it may give forensic insight into what occurred. The thinking is, in general, that the direction is top down.

The Mad Cow Prod news articles (dated as they are) that I cited gives an uglier undertone to the issue--that vote theft may reflect actions to undermine specific election issues--gambling in Fla is very clear, as is the conflict of interest in Pinellas County, but it does not point to republican corruption per se. It does not exonerate Republicans, as the pattern suggests that they benefit by the corruption. It may suggest that more than one party was out tweaking the election; or that theft was available to the highest bidder.

By such patterns being localized, no general pattern would to my mind be discernible by statistical treatments consistent with ESI or Mitofski, but I am not wedded to this position. It needs consideration as to how it may bias everyone's interpretation of events, and either be weighed appropriately or junked.

My own bias as moderator of this thread obviously came into play, since I doubt the fraud necessary to throw the popular vote, but accept it came into play for the electoral college.

Pleased to have you on board.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. I think the gambling angle is a possibility, someone could make big $$
Edited on Tue Nov-01-05 01:45 AM by Land Shark
But I'm thinking also of illegal gambling on who will be the next president....

My personal view is that so many people have a horse in the race on both sides we certainly don't Require any "orders from on top", unless we get to some kind of large scale operation with necessary coordination *as opposed to* various smaller scale ops adding up to large scale.

There's lots to think about in this post, so I'll have to come back later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. the brainstorm thread generated a lot of material
with a big shout-out to kiwi_expat for contributions above and beyond. We'll probably end up adding even more (one place or another), but I didn't so much feel that the thread was snagged, although of course a lot of people skipped it.

I have a lot of thoughts that won't fit fruitfully into a post this evening, so I won't try -- it rarely goes well for me when I do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. It was/is a good thread
and slowly gathered some good moss. Thanks for posting it!

Now we should take a good look at the moss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well then, can we start with OH suppression of african americans
being a sufficient factor in Bush's re-election?

I know that long lines can be estimated roughly to exclude African American voters, there is your estimate for Franklin Co, there is Knapp's for Cuyahoga; can we roughly extrapolate to other counties with reports of long lines and large urban african american populations to where the margin is broached? Or is it simply one variable in a larger equation?

I've been of the opinion, that as long as it's locally secret, suppression by long lines would explain 80 to 100% of Bush's margin. I'm vacillating between the two possibilities--the problem I am seeing is the pattern of voter suppression by long lines, provisional ballots, and purges all focused on the same demographic. With estimates taken independently of each other, the numbers may intersect, and the overall effect dampened.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Richard Hayes Phillips' estimates of Kerry votes lost by voter suppression
Edited on Tue Nov-01-05 08:43 PM by kiwi_expat
http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/Vote_Count_...

Richard Hayes Phillips' "most conservative estimate is that the reported vote margin of victory for George W. Bush in the state of Ohio is inflated by 101,020 votes..... More realistic estimates indicate John F. Kerry actually won Ohio's 20 electoral votes."

Phillips based his estimates on precinct by precinct analysis of 15 Ohio counties accounting for 62% of registered voters in the state. 73 counties not even examined.

Links to his individual county analyses can be found at http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm

REGARDING VOTER SUPPRESSION:

Phillips conservatively estimates that Kerry lost 17,000 votes in Columbus due to under allocation of voting machines.

He conservatively estimates that voter suppression in Toledo cost Kerry 7,000 votes. (Burglary of Lucas county Democratic HQ)

From Phillips' analysis of the Lucas county burglary:

"The article, written by Robin Erb, published October 13,
2004, is entitled: 'Thieves hit Democratic Party offices;
computers containing sensitive data removed.' I take the
liberty of abbreviating it here:" - RHP

"....Thieves shattered a side window overnight at Lucas County
Democratic headquarters in Toledo, stealing computers with
sensitive campaign information and jeopardizing the
party's ability to deliver crucial votes on Election Day.

"Among the data on the stolen computer of the party's
office manager were: e-mails discussing campaign strategy,
candidates' schedules, financial information, and phone
numbers of party members, candidates, donors, and
volunteers. Also taken were computers belonging to a
Lucas County Commissioner and to a Texas attorney working
with the Kerry campaign to ensure election security."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. going by the undated Freepress account
I come up with 53,567 that I would associate with vote suppression, the other categories I see as being combinations, or weak. (Note that I am only evaluating Phillips, I think we can build upwards from this.)

I'm not convinced that the Connelly Bush relationship is telling, unless one points out that an active campaign against Connelly was underway in Warren, Clemont, and Butler. The non-votes for chief justice are too high to suggest anything. The association between a partisan office race and non-partisan (where the last name is a good anglo-saxon name in a part of Ohio suspected of having southern values) race makes this a weak case particularly if the candidate is unknown. It would be a different matter if the down ballot candidate was partisan and democrat. I think running correlations between Connelly and other democratic cndidates might be interesting.

The residual counties are republican, and for us non-controversial (though there may be problems there with undercounting bush votes, or votes for bush going to third parties) but without equivalent evaluation to discern whether these patterns are the result of incompetence or malfeasance makes the overall estimate unclear.

The other concern I have is with when the work was performed. There may exist later corrections to the various miscounts.

As to the break in, wasn't there another in Ohio, or am I confusing this with Tallahassee?

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. could you break down the 53K somewhat?
(I agree that the Connelly argument isn't strong.)

I'm not asking you to summarize RHP at length, but if you can give me a summary of Top Vote Suppression Counts by County or something like that, so I know where to look. Franklin, surely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Sure
I'm being strict as to vote suppression--potential votes not counted or over counted.

I dropped from the total reported for Cleveland since it mentions switched votes--I have not looked at the specific canvass tally;
27,000 from Butler, Clermont, and Warren counties; 600 for Delaware, and 2,200 for Mahoning as these seem more vote switching than vote suppression.

So that leaves:

16,650 uncounted ballots
5,370 provisional ballots
7,000 Toledo buglary
6,000 Miami
1,547 Trumball County (this is the strongest allegation in the collective bunch in MHO, and one I have heard the least on!)

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. and 17K in Franklin?
(your numbers don't add up to 53+K, but with 17K in Franklin they would)

Bear with me, I will be more interesting as we go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. My initial estimate in Franklin
was 18,500 votes, with 66% of those cast for Kerry, 30% for Bush and ther rest for independents. However, I think that is an overestimate as machines were fairly clearly (from the stats, and by later admission) allocated on the basis of past turnout. My initial estimate allowed for a lower Democratic turnout on the basis of voter behaviour in precincts where there were an adequate number of machines, but this assumes that the increase in turnout would be similar across precincts with high and low turnout in 2000.

So I think 17K is pushing it quite a bit. But there is no doubt that Kerry was the net loser of votes due to machine rationing.

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/FranklinCountyRe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. May be we need to test the assumption
that turnout was equal across precincts with higher turnout vs. lower turnout in 2000 or 2002. I think the metric would be turnout in high % African American precincts elsewhere. If in Los Angeles, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and New York we see equal or greater difference in turnout without regional variability, then the value may stand.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Well I think that is very possible
I was just trying to find a safe minimum. It could well be higher than my minimum, it's just that there are too many free parameters in the equation. But at minimum Kerry was the net loser according to my calcs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. let me see if I understand your question
I think this parallels what some of us have been talking about in e-mails.

One argument would be that in the absence of vote suppression, turnout in heavily black and Democratic urban precincts should be expected to equal turnout everywhere else -- so we can notionally set turnout in these precincts at the county mean, or the state mean, or whatever, and see how many votes were stolen.

The counterargument would be that maybe, even given an effective Get Out The Vote operation, turnout in these precincts is likely to be lower than in other places.

One side would say that long lines are direct evidence that (attempted) turnout was high. The other would say that we don't know how long the lines were everywhere, and that if a precinct with historical 50% turnout adds some new registered voters and then experiences long lines, we still can't assume that the increased turnout would hit some average.

And, you would propose that instead of trying to sort this out just by staring at Ohio figures, we try to gain additional perspective by looking elsewhere.

The problem with LA and NYC is that neither is in a swing state, although I have no info on the intensity of the GOTV efforts there. Philly might be best. Clearly there won't be a perfect "control," because wherever there is GOTV, there may be suppression of various forms. Cincinnati could serve as a baseline of sorts. I reckoned that its turnout was about 69% (of registered voters -- a risky standard of comparison because some counties purge their lists more stringently than others, and because I don't think Cincinnati has any schools as enormous as Ohio State, so I am inclined to expect extra stale registration lists in parts of Columbus).

Scatterplotting turnout by % Kerry, I find that turnout in Cincinnati is everywhere higher (on average by % Kerry, that is!!) than in Columbus; that turnout in both cities drops markedly as % Kerry increases; but that the gradient is steeper for Columbus. Just eyeballing the graph (this is not at all a rigorous modeling exercise!!), turnout in Cinti is about 75% at 40% Kerry, about 65% at 90% Kerry. Turnout in Columbus is about 60% at 40% Kerry, about 45% at 90% Kerry.

Sigh -- there is an entire literature, including Febble's, that I'm not addressing at all, as well as some other people's work in progress. Just a little raw empiricism to stir into the mix. I will try to do more -- juggling too many things right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I was suggesting the simplest approach to the issue first
I agree that any approach is problematic. But I was addressing participation by african americans. The student voter issue requires another approach.

Both St. Louis and Philadelphia are in swing states, more can be brought in. Philadelphia has its own set of voter issues and problems. Los Angeles and New York (here in California there was no local presidential campaign, we were relegated to cash cow)are not subject to GOTV as they are safe blue states. Maybe include Memphis to see what went on in a red state.

The thing is that it is simple, and can suggest whether the estimate is too high. It might not validate the estimate though--that is where examination of Cincinnati may come in.

Apparently a strong effort to purge of voters in Ohio appears to have been undertaken under Blackwell. It appears (at least in the case of Cuyahoga) that new voter registration, on the democratic side, was to essentially regain the numbers of registered voters that were purged over this period of time. The question becomes where were the voters lost, and where were they gained.

Alternatively, Cincinnati being in Republican Hamilton County may not have had reason to purge as many because of overall higher voter participation by republicans, but the purges would target precincts with lower participation. Columbus, being a university town, it is just as likely that students maintained their voter registration at home; and students are unlikely to live in predominantly african american precincts. So it would be, to my thinking, likely at the precinct level that comparison might be apt for student populations so long as it is at a public university.

One caveat--Here in the West, the two populations are discrete in their distribution, as there is something to 'coming from the south side of the tracks', but I don't know how that pattern holds up in the East.

Mike



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. I think we should differentiate between "vote" and "voter" suppression
I referred to the Franklin (Columbus) and Lucas (Toledo) fraud as VOTER suppression. I would call the others VOTE suppression.

The distinction is important because it helps us keep track of actual votes cast.

Of the VOTE suppression, it would also be good to differentiate between those things that are detectable with a manual recount (e.g., uncounted "spoilage" and provisional ballots, and tabulator errors) and those that aren't.

But perhaps all this categorization is not very brainstormy.


I do think that it would be useful to save analysis re. intent (accident vs. "fraud") till later. I figure the main goal is to see if Kerry could have won.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. I agree
Issuing provisional ballots and then rejecting them is vote suppression. One reason the distinction matters is that voter suppression (voters not getting as far as casting a vote) won't show up in the exit polls, whereas some forms of vote suppression (more Democratic voters being issued with provisional ballots than Republican voters) will. On the other hand some forms won't - precincts with badly maintained machines may disproportionately suppress the Democratic candidates' vote overall if the bad machines are disproportionately found in largely Democratic precincts - but because they will spoil votes regardless of who they are cast for, it shouldn't show up as within-precinct error.

However, where literacy levels affect spoilage, the spoilage patterns MAY show up in the exit polls.

All of which makes the exit poll evidence harder to read - but at least distinguishing between vote and voter suppression is a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. That is an accurate distinction
and one that I have tried to keep in mind. Making it explicit gets past the 'assume' rubric.

Vote suppression would be accountable within the exit poll, voter supression not so (unless they left the line after they were polled). But it begs the question as to whether it is fraud.

I do think we can put a number around voter suppression--it just is not going to be very precise.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. How about: "100,000+" = Ohio voter suppression (imprecise) number ?
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 08:56 PM by kiwi_expat
"As an example, if one compares the voter turnout of Cleveland (53%) against Cincinnati (59%), almost 50,000 votes are lost; include the calculation you made for Franklin, and the total jumps to 100,000."
-mgr

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Put away the foil, I have not disowned that estimate, but,
The level of imprecision I would like would be at the tens of thousands. It is this level that makes me queasy, because it is 100,000 +/-. Less that 50,000 is 0.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Possible 20,000-100,000 suppressed by challenges? Use Conyers Report.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept...

from Conyers' report:

{Voter Suppression}

Pre-Election
____________

1. Machine Allocations...

2. Cutting Back on the Right to Provisional Ballots.

3. Cutting Back on the Right of Citizens to Register to Vote.

4. Targeting New Minority Registrants - Caging.

5. Targeting Minority and Urban Voters for Legal Challenges.

6. Denying Absentee Voters Who Never Got their Ballots the Right to a Provisional Ballot.
....

* * *

The section of the report dealing with "Targeting Minority and Urban Voters for Legal Challenges" concludes with the analysis,
".... the disruptions caused by challenges could easily have reduced minority turnout by tens of thousands of voters, if not more."

I (kiwi) figure that can be stated as a range of 20,000-100,000 voters suppressed. ("Tens" would be at least 20. "More" than "tens" would be 100.)

Is that too tinfoil for you?


PLEASE, FOLKS, HAVE A LOOK AT CONYERS' REPORT AND SEE WHAT VOTER SUPPRESSION YOU CAN QUANTIFY.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. Unfortunate word choice:
Next time I will pay better attention to using words that have more than one meaning. I was playing on 'foil' as in fencing, as I feared I would lose readers if I used 'epee' which was my original word choice. I respect your position, and consider it well thought through and reasoned; I was acknowleding that I appreciate the application of the razor to our use of concepts and terms.

There is nothing tin foil hat about this at all. This is calculated politics, and has been going on for a long, long time--we have just managed to document it in Ohio, and in Florida (2000). It's business as usual, and if African Americans voters seem paranoid, well, there is probably something in their past that supports this.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Tfc confirms >100,000 voters purged in Cuyahoga (probably illegally).
"Recently I found a couple of sources to confirm that over a hundred thousand voters were indeed purged from the voter registration roles in Cuyahoga County prior to the 2004 election, probably illegally."
-Tfc

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. But did we recover these as new voters with the registration drive?
Or, more importantly, did we register new voters from other regions within the county?

Do we have more registration work cut out for us, or will a GOTV be enough?

Once I get the election hangover out of my system, maybe I will play with SOS registration numbers.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-05 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Tfc estimates Cuyahoga purges cost Kerry tens of thousands of votes.
Edited on Fri Nov-11-05 12:00 AM by kiwi_expat
He says, "We know that many thousands of voters were not notified...
I don't doubt that Kerry lost tens of thousands of votes due to this problem..."
(See post #13 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... )


I (kiwi) think that a Kerry loss of tens of thousands of votes due to Cuyahoga purges sounds reasonable: Add to the "many thousands of voters" who were not notified, the probable number of voters who were notified but did not re-register.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. I'm not quite assured that is air tight.
I think we cannot separate the two into distinct streams. There are only a finite number of potential voters in Cuyahoga, and the problem is similar to filling a bathtub without a stopper.

There are a couple of questions I have:
were the purges consonant with Ohio law or HAVA?

how does one verify some one did not recieve a notice (it's proving a negative, and subjective at that, one could incidentally throw it out with the junk mail--what did the actual notice look like?)?

The thing is, is the spigot attached to the drain? There's no way of knowing until examined at the precinct level; and I don't believe when I last looked that 2000 levels of registration were available (and that is assuming that precincts were not redrawn).

The claim was that the GOTV collected ~300,000 new registrations in Cuyahoga. That would leave ~150,000 additional voters. The total registered voters in 2004 compared to 2000 less by about. Somewhere there's an exaggeration or some fraud. We need to establish that it's not an exaggeration, but Tfc has not recieved any response from the NY Times reporters that gave that number (as far as I know).

One possible explanation for a possible exaggeration is that the various groups doing the registering of new voters overlapped so they re-registered several voters more than once, but I can't see that running into the tens of thousands, let alone over 100,000.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Watch this space. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
42. Cutting Back on the Right to Provisional Ballots: tens of thousands voters
Conyers' report estimates that cutting back on the right to Provisional Ballots "could well have resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters".

We can assume that, as with other forms of voter suppression, this would have primarily disenfranchised Kerry voters.


(Conyers' report does not attempt to quantify the disenfranchisement caused by Cutting Back on the Right of Citizens to Register to Vote, Targeting New Minority Registrants (Caging), or Denying Absentee Voters Who Never Got their Ballots the Right to a Provisional Ballot.)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. see links
http://www.flcv.com/ohiosum.html
http://www.flcv.com/summary.html Ohio
see the Ohio Common Cause info and that of Free Press

but there were probably even more in Florida; and the swing was larger in Florida
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

http://www.flcv.com/Fla04EAS.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. One of your links asserts:
In Florida, these discrepancies appear to have amounted to enough to have been responsible for George Bush's statewide "victory" margin. Many of them were in precincts with a strong Democratic majority. Some media commentators have explained the gap between the exit polls and the final vote counts by claiming that the exit polls were flawed. However, in those precincts where there was a machine that produced a "paper trail," the exit polls almost exactly matched the actual vote and there were few discrepancies giving George Bush extra votes.


http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

These assertions are not sourced. I myself did some analysis of data on the relationship between machine type and vote anomalies in both Florida and NM. The Florida story is certainly complex and it is certainly not clear that paper ballots (optically scanned) were less problematic than DREs, or that the registration anomalies are robust when past voting patterns are taken into account.

In NM there appears to have been a specific problem with undervotes on a particular type of DRE.

http://uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Moreover, the assertion that PBHC precincts were the only ones that with "accurate" exit polls is frequently made, but the evidence for the assertion seems thin at best. (There were only about 40 such precincts in the entire E-M sample, all in rural areas). Finally, there were many, many, precincts in which the exit polls gave Bush "extra" votes, as was shown by Mitofsky in his presentation to AAPOR in May.

I do think that at this stage in the debate we need to distinguish between supported and unsupported assertions if we are going to make any useful progress in determining what where fraud may have occurred, and what needs fixing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. I wouldn't regard RHP's estimate as "conservative"
but nonetheless possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. VOTER suppression that is very difficult to quantify -
Most of these occurred primarily in Democratic strongholds (urban precincts):

<> Voter intimidation

<> Failure to issue absentee ballots

<> Failure to issue provisional ballots in accordance with the law

<> Giving voters incorrect information in order to prevent them from voting

<> Destruction of voter-registration forms

<> Comprehensive purges of occasional voters

<> Stricter voter-ID requirements


Shall we just say these add up to more than 100,000 lost Kerry votes, and leave it at that? :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. I'd like to let Febble have the last word on Ohio voter suppression:
"And I also think that voter suppression was massive in Ohio, probably illegal (or at least in violation of Civil Rights legislation), and may alone have cost Kerry Ohio. I'd like to see him fight for the rights of not only his black voters but all Ohio's black voters, whether he is convinced he won Ohio or not. I think he owes them at least that." -Febble

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #23
36. widespread dirty tricks in many areas of many states; including
many thousands of mail, leaflets, phone calls telling minority voters their precinct had changed; that election was another day, etc.
destruction of precinct signs in minority precincts
no lights or parking places in minority precincts
road blocks, road work, etc. blocking off access to minority precincts;
not enough voting machines in minority precincts
majority of machines in many minority precincts were broken
very long lines
poll workers giving minority voters misinformation as to what precinct they were supposed to vote in; to cause them to go to or vote in wrong precinct and lose their vote
intimidation
poll workers punching the wrong button on e machines
machines that only allowed vote for Republicans in many precincts
etc.
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-05 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. some of these are federal crimes but those responsible weren't punished
even though some of those responsible were known;
and these were systematic dirty tricks of similar nature in many areas of at least 20 states.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. well, we know Gore votes were moved to Buchanan in FL
remember the surprising number of votes for him was part of the recount argurment? remember him saying that even he didn't think the aging jewish population wouldn't be much interested in his platform?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The problem with La Pore's butterfly ballot issue is
that intent to defraud was never established. Given the nature of the recount, what I would be interested is the Buchanan votes coupled with votes for other democrats down ballot. The butterfly ballot, if I recall, was illegal according to Fla law, but no action was taken. I suspect that Bev Harris' grandstanding has further muddied the waters.

This of course precludes active replacement of ballots after the election. I think some specific history as to how the 2000 election was conducted in the big three counties--Volusia, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade is needed, because I don't think we've reached consensus as to what took place. What we are left with is the odd question of why a registered democrat would conduct an election that may have siphoned votes away from the presidential ticket to a right wing ideolog. Have American Jews collectively ceased being progressive--there is that wierd thing about Rabin's assassin killing a criminal coming from the killer's family as justification for why his prison term should be reduced.

Does some local corruption play a role? Is LaPore a stealth republican? Was there local government animosity towards Gore?

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. having grown up in that area of Florida -- parents were well-connected
Edited on Tue Nov-01-05 01:04 PM by nashville_brook
i'd have to say it's the corruption.

there was a family there when i was a kid -- they controlled everything. the matriarch was of carribean blood and their house was like something out of a movie. she literally had a "throne" she sat at. it was an ornate antique chair with a high back -- carved, etc -- and you entered the house (an old victorian) and thru these big pocket doors to the left was her long, dark room -- the throne at the end.

if you wanted to do anything in one part of town where we owned property, you had to go thru these people. every palm was greased. we had to visit her many times in the course of running our real estate biz and my uncle's fishing/restaurant biz.

my grandfather had been an alderman in boca in the 20s. he was totally bought. but that's another story.

if it's in Florida and there's money or power or land attached to it -- it's nature is of corruption. read carl hiaason for humorous insight. south florida has always been outlaw territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. the desire to cover one's ass, and the desire to hold levers of power
Edited on Wed Nov-02-05 08:31 PM by Land Shark
are completely nonpartisan. A Democrat might TOTALLY cover up Republican gains because not to do so would reveal incompetence and make that Democrat the ultimate party Goat, not to mention bring down the fires of Hades in the media maelstrom.

On the other hand and on the more positive side for an aspiring election politico, bringing "progress" to voting while simultaneously being able to digitally obscure the non-photogenic nature of one's posterior hanging out, is also a big plus that goes with this "progress". Not to mention the revolving door to the big consulting and other jobs sometimes available with vendors for elections officials that decide to move onward and upward, cashing in on governmental experiences and contacts.

Because in elections "shoulda coulda woulda" is often a perfectly good excuse to terminate any further investigation or analysis, (think: "it coulda been just a voter mistake") please trouble yourselves no further on the subject of equal opportunity electronic machine promotion, as a half dozen things could explain it without necessarily being a stealth Republican. Thank you. : )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
46. LePore was a registered Republican
"LePore was a registered Republican, but then switched her party to Democratic because according to her "when I ran , I chose Democrat because the incumbent was Democrat and the county registration is predominantly Democrat." After the 2000 election, she switched her party registration to No Party Affiliation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_LePore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. Three of the links in bibliography don't work
and, one that does

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/05/... /

states that she is a democrat.

It does not invalidate the statement that she changed her registration, though one would expect CNN to get it right in 2001. However, I do like the reference to God in providing comfort--but I don't know if this is pandering or sincere.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. #3: the stake for the Greens, Libertarians and Nader to explore recounts?
Nader was persuaded by our own IdaBriggs to request a recount of a small number (8?) of suspicious precincts in New Hampshire. He was quite disappointed by the 2004 results. Based on 2000 results, Nader had expected to do well in New Hampshire. (The recount went smoothly. Both Nader and Briggs were very complimentary of the New Hampshire voting and recount system.)

But the Greens' and Libertarians' sponsoring of the Ohio recount (paid for by thousands of small donations) was a purely selfless enterprise. Someone needed to initiate a recount in Ohio, and Kerry-Edwards were clearly not going to do it. An internet-based campaign persuaded the Greens and Libertarians to come to the rescue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Hmmm...I don't know about the selfless part
I'm too much the cynic. There is that matching fund issue, and the Green Party's share is highly volatile over the last three elections: 0.6%, 2.7%, and 0.09%. An appeal to the progressive wing to come back from the democrats is possible.

The Liberatarians have been steady over the same time: 0.5%, 0.3%, 0.3% but embarrassing the republican party is something I could see them pursuing.

However, I think we can see nationally, that a pattern with the 2004 election does not appear to be hiding democratic votes in the third parties; it in fact appears that that may have been the case in 2000.

It would be interesting to see if Ohio follows this pattern.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. 4. Evidence suggests that loss of these votes cost Kerry the popular vote?
Edited on Fri Nov-04-05 08:56 PM by kiwi_expat
In the original brainstorm thread, one of the strings was "4. Evidence suggests that loss of these votes cost Kerry the popular vote."

Febble listed "exit poll data" as possible evidence, to be discussed later. Lets discuss that (briefly) now, please .

Since this is a brainstorm thread, I would like to put out a poorly-formed idea that others might be able to build on:

Might it be possible to identify states that had a big red-shift NOT likely to have been caused by sampling bias?

In the E-M Report, Mitofsky lists factors that correlated with high WPE. Three of those factors - weather, distance restrictions, and multiple-precinct polling places - when combined with inexperienced interviews, are likely to have resulted in bias in the Ohio NEP results.

But there must be some states that did not have those factors to any great extent. Could we infer that any significant red-shift in a sunny rural state not having a distance restriction might be largely caused by fraud??


NOTE: The factors that Mitofsky correlates with WPE, on a precinct basis, do not necessarily correlate with state-wide red-shifts. Also, the report states that previous elections had high WPE values, without the big red-shifts seen in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. A few thoughts
First is that the within-precinct error calcs are an analytical tool (to find the source of the error) not, AFAIK, part of the projection process. So the state-level projects will be subject to various forms of error, and also to various forms of correction of apparent error in the inputs (age-sex-race adjustment for non-responders, for example; and of course the notorious re-weighting in light of incoming vote-returns).

I've spent more time looking at what Freeman calls the Precinct Level Discrepancy (PLD) than elsewhere, as it would appear that it was at this level the discrepancy was greatest. Precinct selection does not appear to have been a problem and the effect size of the discrepancy appears to be smaller at state level (i.e. the discrepancy between the close-of-poll projections and the "final" projections) than at precinct level, suggesting that whatever weighting was applied to the raw data was effective at reducing the precinct level discrepancy.

So the precinct level analysis is what we want to look at - but we also need to see it nested within state level factors, for example gross state margins. It does appear that the precinct level discrepancies were greater where the state was bluer. A plot of mean WPEs, given in the E-M report against the counted margin shows quite a marked relationship.



I found a similar relationship in 1988, but the opposite relationship, oddly, in 1992. Note that 1992 was the big Perot year, so patterns of "reluctance" might have been different. Or other patterns of bias. Or indeed patterns of fraud.

Which is not exactly addressing your question, except that the factors you cite (and others) are sometimes state wide (weather; swing state status; state margin; distance of pollster from polling place) and others more precinct-specific (interviewer characteristics; interviewing rate; voting technology). And others are more generally demographic (rural/urban) but collinear with certain state characteristics (vote margin).

Which is still not addressing your question, which I think can only begin to be answered by a multiple regression model that includes both state-level and precinct level variables predictor variables and a precinct level measure of PLD as dependent variable (preferably NOT the WPE!)- which is what my original paper actually called for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
30. most states had touch screen switching and lots of manipulation
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 May 23rd 2019, 01:52 PM
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