Bad News from Wired News

[bones_7672]

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65665,00.html

thoughts, anyone?

[Middle Finger Bush]

1. seems fair

we did screw ourselves with that red herring issue

but if people do uncover actual evidence, Wired will no doubt cover that issue

[althecat]

4. Read more now... All About Kathy Dopp's Opti-Scan evidence

This article deals solely with the Florida Opti-Scan evidence.

This evidence was criticised here from the outset. Kim seems to imply that it is on this evidence alone that we are up in arms. And that is a misrepresentation of what this is about.

[springhill]

68. Bottom lin........

No matter what happens, we have to get rid of the machines.

[althecat]

2. Only read the headline so far .. but I am already disappointed with Kim

She has done so much for this movement.

The absence of evidence is not proof of innocence - it just means we have too look further.

All these articles.. Salon, Washpost etc.. seem to think that we critics should have to produce signed witness statements from vote stealers in order to hold suspicions.

They read, to a woman, like they are reciting a set of GOP talking points.

[saddemocrat]

3. Not so fast...

Maybe it IS time for us to back away from our computers and step outside and smell the fresh air for a day? I'm not suggesting we're wrong, but we can't poopoo everyone who disagrees with us. At some point, we may be forced to realize that we were....wrong....:( I'm not saying that we are...but it IS a possibility. We have to be rational.

kris

[txindy]

5. No time for that

Step outside or do things half-heartedly after the inauguration. Not now.

[Nitro]

8. Don't screw up worse with NH - that's a red herring too

All the early pro-Kerry exit polls were within the margin of error from the pre-election state tracking polls. All of them except NH, which fell out of that margin by a ton. Think about it.

1. I have no doubt the presidential election was stolen with e-voting - NO DOUBT!

2. I understand why we are pursuing NH for the recount. I see how it get the ball rolling. But it looks like we no longer need to do it anyway, since recount efforts in other states are already being pursued.

3. I think we are being tricked.

WHY?

The 57-41 and 58-41 exit polling results were a plant. The Repukes obviously had access to the early exit polls before anything was leaked, and they knew what the results would tell everyone: a sure Kerry win. They knew that after they manipulated the machines, people would surely find out about it using statistics and common sense (like we have).

So what did they do about it?

They went and changed one. They manipulated the NH exit poll results so we would call for a recount in a state that requires a paper trail, which would "confirm" that no cheating occurred (and possibly this is why Nader has answered our call - no, I don't trust him. How could I?).

Why do I believe this?

I remember seeing two early exit polls, and the one most people weren't using polled Kerry up by 3% in NH(the one not leaked from the NEP). In this less used poll, Kerry had basically the same margins as he did in the NEP in the other questionable swing states (but not NH).

Remember, the evidence of vote fraud isn't strong in NV, which requires a paper trail, and ME, which doesn't use e-voting. Do you actually think the Repukes hadn't considered NH's paper trail? Please people, come to our senses. We can't let them use NH to tell us were wrong!

Just look at all this:

This is from some message board on election day:

*
Wonkette sez: Repub Luntz's numbers... (none / 0)

5:25 p.m.
From an email circulated by Frank Luntz:
Way too close to call/BUT leaning Kerry by 1 percent
Fla.
Ohio
Pa.: 54 percent for Kerry
Wisc: 3 point lead for Kerry
Iowa.: 1 point lead for Kerry (Bush supposed to win)
NM: Kerry plus 2
Nev: Bush plus 1
NH: Kerry by 3
NJ: 8 points for Kerry
Colo: Bush plus 2
Mich: Kerry plus 4

http://forums.windrivers.com/showthread.php?t=65809
*

Notice how every other state matches with the early exit polling, except NH!!!!

Also check out this post here about exit poll numbers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Another clue:
Zogby had +5 for Bush in his pre-election polling. +10 and higher is outside of the MOE.

Rove eagerly pointed out the huge "lead" in NH on FOX:
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/11/09/ed.edit.ex ...

Also, here:
NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez proffers the following set of numbers at 5:28 PM:

Kerry-Bush
FL 50-49
OH 50-49
PA 54-45
WI 51-46
MI 51-47
NH Kerry +3

NV 48-50
CO 46-53
NC 49-51
MO Bush +11

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001709.html

And here:
NUMBERS WE'RE SEEING
WARNING: I'M REPORTING WHAT WE ARE SEEING. IT DOES NOT MAKE IT THE FINAL RESULTS. ONLY THE VOTERS DO THAT. (And excuse cap letters, but everytime I warn, half the readers tell me I should have warned and the other half say I am pathetically desperate.
Kerry-Bush
FL 50-49
OH 50-49
PA 54-45
WI 51-46
MI 51-47
NH Kerry +3

NV 48-50
CO 46-53
NC 49-51
MO Bush +11

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_11_02_corner ...

Also, please read this article again, and pay careful attention to the part on NH:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/03110 ...

Remember, Kerry became the first Democrat since Woodrow Wilson in 1912 to beat a sitting Republican president in New Hampshire. Do you really think he would win by 18 points, out of nowhere?!? And why were these specific numbers leaked so heavily and reported by on by the same corporate media who said they wouldn't discuss exit poll numbers?!?

We're relying on rational thought and statistical proof to conclude that Bush cheated. Please use the same rational approach to statistics to realize it didn't happen in NH!!!!!! All they needed to do, really, was switch the ones digit in the leak email (so that 51-48 became 58-41).

NH COULD RUIN ALL THE HARD WORK WE'VE DONE SO FAR. WERE BEING TRICKED INTO PROVING OURSELVES WRONG!!!!!! DO NOT GO THROUGH WITH THE RECOUNT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE!!!!! THEY MANIPULATED THE NH EXIT POLL DATA TO THROW US OFF FROM THE REAL FRAUD!!!!!!!

[hang a left]

28. Bev Harris believes that NH WILL uncover fraud.

I think that is where alot of her efforts are being channeled right now. I trust her judgement.

[althecat]

37. Aha.. but none are so blind as those who refuse to see

Just like we will take some convincing that the election was valid. The otherside have some fairly heavy duty blinkers on.

[txindy]

36. NH's outcome changes nothing

NH and OH are independent investigations. Nader is calling for the former and the Greens for the latter. OH has so many documented problems that it needs a closer look based on its own merits. NH has no bearing on whether OH will be looked at. Now, OH SoS Blackwell is changing the requirements determining the validity of prov. and absentee ballots. That's not a small thing. OH stands alone in its problems.

[ColdNovember]

69. The exit polls may be compelling..

but I don't think they are very persausive.

I mean, It may be true,but people aren't really interested in hearing us recite long columns of figures.

I think we got a lot of documention on that.

Now we need to get our eyes and ears out there and uncover some verifiable, physical instances of fraud

[ewulf]

71. So they control the exit polls too?

So are you trying to say that the Repugs can swing exit polls also? If they can do that, then whats the point of any of this, why wouldn't they just have the exit polls match the tabulated results? Honestly, I don't think looking into things ever hurt us: the truth is on our side, the more reality we uncover, the better we do. If the exit polls really are all off, and we can show it somehow, we'll, at least we can stop waisting our time, if they were correct, and we can prove it, then Kerry is our next president. Either way, we win...

[IdaBriggs]

74. The New Hampshire Study did NOT use exit poll data.

Either you are completely uninformed, or you are trying to cover something up. Which is it?

[saddemocrat]

12. what if...

we are wrong...I'll be honest...deep in my heart I want to believe that there was fraud. I did everything that I could to see 'W' thrown out on his corrupt little butt and in the end, he prevailed. I'm apalled by his inability to speak in coherent sentences, the illegal war in Iraq, etc, etc. I REALLY would love to see something come of these allegations.

At the same time, I can't help but wondering ....what if we're wrong....Is my tinfoil beanie on a little too tight or is their a media lockdown? I don't know...

:(

kris

[corky44]

42. It's not only progressives problem

because millions of people truly believe this vote was hacked.
Imagine that you were a first time voter and you believe the vote
was stolen- why would you ever participate again. Doubts
of this magnitude are like a corrosive acid burning a hole in the floor.
Unless these questions can be answered to a much greater degree,
the vote will slip into the realm of the occult.

[bullimiami]

43. hey if we are wrong. we are wrong.

does it seem wrong to you? did you see bush go out and energize these voters to stand in lines and participate like their lives depended on it?

the exit polls, the pre polling, the disapproval rating, the turnout. all conventional wisdom, none of this applies to bush?

not for me. they will have to prove our america is the stupidest most gullible hateful country on the planet first.

[Eloriel]

51. saddemocrat -- this really isn't about whether we get Bush

out of office or not. And in a sense, it's not even whether we can "prove" there was "fraud" or not (in fact, it may not be provable at all, given how the voting machines are set up). I believe there WAS fraud, if only because of the horrendous and all-pervasive Repug efforts at vote suppression EVERYwhere.

The FAR more important issue is proving that the voting machines are unreliable and fraud-possible (to coin a word there).

Don't pin your hopes on seeing Kerry in the White House -- certainly not in Jan. 2005. But please DO work as hard as you can (notifying friends and family, if nothing else) to help us push forward these recounts so that we might be able to "fix" this voting machine mess.

Because I can tell you FOR SURE that they WILL steal our votes, they WILL put in office whoever "they" want, and voting from here on out will be just a meaningless, but pleasant, reminder of what our democracy used to be like. I spent almost all of last year working on the BBV issue, and I know whereof I speak. The machines are deadly for democracy.

If you care a whit about democracy and our right to vote, WHOEVER ultimately wins, please work with us on this.

Here's where to contribute and a nice thread with a suggested letter to send to friends/family/etc.

*****Want to Help America Recount? The website is UP!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1344801

***** Donations for the Recount" Fundraising Kit > > >
(Use this to send to your friends -- enormous amount of info -- pick and choose what you need)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x37833

[JudyM]

17. Right on. This is the time for action.

[el_gato]

7. what's this "we" shit

you don't speak for me or anyone else here.

[saddemocrat]

15. 'we'

Calm down.....Am I actually going to get slack for just suggesting we think really hard about this? Is rational thought not an option? I'm still on YOUR side....there is nothing wrong with bringing up opposing views...debunk them instead of getting upset with me...

kris

[henslee]

50. SORRY SADDEMOCRAT & NITRO BUT TWO LOW POSTERS SCREAMING FOR

FOLKS TO STEP BACK JUST DONT SIT RIGHT WITH ME. PARANOID? Possibly. And forgive me if I am mistaken but with rampant efforts to disenfranchise the vote (30,000 documented complaints to hotlines and yes, a connected lawyer told me there is plenty of evidence to prosecute many!)and with rampant voter intimidation, absentee voter scams and oodles of more hateful acts... PLEASE... DONT CALL FOR CALM AROUND HERE.

And since when it is not okay to question extreme irregularites? Or is it like questioning the war? Is it unpatriotic? Does it throw a crimp into innauguration party plans?

If vote tabulations were open and running smoothly with sincere intentions, and there were not so many attempts to screw poeple over, I would say there might be a drop of merit in what you say, but otherwise, it jsut pisses me off, espeically that familar "I'm the rational one" tone. Blechhh.

[Stephanie]

22. I second that thought

we we we we all the way home

[althecat]

9. Posted a more detailed criticism above..

We are not being irrational.

The media frames this debate as if we are the prosecutors trying to prove something.

The real situation is this There is clear evidence of:
Motive
Opportunity &
Means

And a lot of suspicion that a crime occurred. We are simply asking questions and digging. The Media and others - who are in a much better position to do the work we are doing for them - are trying to tell us to shut up.

Fxxk em.

[NJ_Lib]

11. They drank the Kool-Aid

How else would you explain them attaching themselves to the issue of the Dixiecrats to prove us wrong, rather than the thousand suspicious issues...

[Karenca]

18. We are not wrong

I watched CNN that whole night.....
I saw the numbers change like magic, I saw Woodruff's face FALL.

Exit polls are used all over the world...they are used NOT for entertainment, but to challenge the vote if it differs.
Because exit polls ARE MORE ACCURATE than the count...And if the count is scewed away from the exit polls, they do a recount.
The exit polls CANNOT be tampered with.

I KNEW ALL ALONG, BEFORE NOV 2nd, THAT NO MATTER WHAT, THE REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO FIX THE ELECTION .
I KNEW IT...I WAS RIGHT, AND WE WON, AND NOW WE HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING!!!

[saddemocrat]

21. exit polls

You know, the exit polls are a real sticking point with me....From 1967-1988 there were only 5 mistakes in 1500 exit polls...from 1990-1999 there was 1 mistake in 700 polls. Now, suddenly there are 5-10 polls that were wrong? :o

kris

[sandboxface]

54. Do you have a source for this information? n/t

[RaulVB]

24. Based in the discrepancies and all the data available...

Sorry to tell you. Those who doubt the outcome are right.

[hang a left]

31. Not a chance we are wrong.

IMO

[goclark]

67. Rational - NOT!

We are passionate about the TRUTH and no one can tell us how to think.

We are worker bees and let's get back to work.

Donate now...
www.blackboxvoting.org

[dbonds]

6. I just don't buy this explanation

It requires 100% of repubs vote for bushie, plus a large percentage of the democrats. The number of registered democrats has dropped in those counties by a larger percentage than the number of democrats that would have had to cross-voted. Which means not only the old 'dixi-crats' cross-voted but they picked up new ones.

Also, while not in those specific counties, I know republicans in FL that voted for Kerry.

There are more questions than answers, the only way to get some better data is to poll these counties and see who they voted for.

[lovedems]

13. I agree. Before the election, I didn't know *ONE* person who voted

for Gore and was going to vote for W*. I did however know *SEVERAL* of republicans who voted for W* in 2000 and were not going to vote for him again in 2004.

Basic common sense tells me these numbers are incorrect. I also don't believe the 97% republican turnout for W* in 2004 for the reasons stated above.

[redsoxliberal]

44. no... these are dixiecrats... they've voted republican for 4 or 5

elections in a row. This is a red herring. Before you jump on this stuff, correlate the results with previous elections.
There is other stuff out there, but this is not noteworthy.

[goodboy]

60. yup...they're DINO's...(nt)

[Verve]

35. Ditto!

[rinsd]

48. In the panhandle.....

I have not doubts that Bush had "dem voters" or whatever. Bush won there in 2000 and Dole won there in 1996.

Now other counties in FL may be a different story.

[Lil]

70. You might find this interesting: Bush's fifth ace: A crooked Panhandle

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Jordan-Dawshed072501/jordan-dawshed072501.html

Bush's fifth ace: A crooked Panhandle
Plop some green eyeshades on blind Bob Butterworth
By Elizabeth Jordan and Oliver Dawshed


. . .
What we found was implausible enough to justify an investigation by law enforcement authorities. Precinct level information from 11 northern counties revealed that two parameters which can be logically connected to electoral fraud (ballot spoilage and the number of Gore votes divided by the number of Nelson votes) account for two-thirds of the variation in Gore's performance; the chances of this happening by chance are about 1 in 1047 (10 raised to the 47th power). This was true in aggregate as well as individually. Each of the eleven northern counties that we studied had patterns consistent with cheating by Republicans. These were Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Columbia, Dixie, Gulf, Hamilton, Jackson, Suwanee, Union, and Washington. Precincts in some counties had discard rates of up to 40 percent of ballots cast! Calhoun and Dixie showed profiles possibly suggestive of ballot box stuffing. We suggest that the most consistent explanation of the statistical anomalies is a pattern of criminal tampering with ballots, primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) by Republicans. In just 14 suspicious precincts with suspiciously high ballot discard rates, 844 ballots for Gore were destroyed in excess of what would be expected. In the 11 counties, the total number of Gore ballots involved is probably in the tens of thousands, our model suggests that 7,100 votes may have been destroyed, so the number destroyed in all northern counties may have been many tens of thousands.

. . .

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Jordan-Dawshed072501/Bush_s_Fifth_Ace.pdf 32 pg. pdf file of complete report

[oldtime dfl_er]

10. This reminds me of

the "explanations" of the 18,181 identical vote wins of Republicans in 5 places in 2002. If you begin with the premise that the numbers are correct you can always claim "statistical anomalies' or unusual circumstances, etc. A true critical analysis of the figures and strange events shows the VIRTUAL impossibility of what they are trying to make us swallow about these Florida counties.

[Xipe Totec]

14. Flying False Colors: Possible reason for high crossover votes

The fact is that there was no republican challenger to * in 2004.

Republicans who might have wanted to stack the deck in favor of * could have done so by registering Democratic and voting for the weakest Democratic candidate during the primaries, then they could turn around and vote Republican on Nov 2nd.

Dirty? Yes. Illegal? No.

[bones_7672]

26. In the primaries ...

... you'd have to live in an "open-primary" state to crossover, or else declare a change of party, which, I admit, might not be too hard to do.

[Helga Scow Stern]

16. Still doesn't explain anything....

This at least is a somewhat more considered analysis than the outright propaganda of the WP and NPR. The fact is, however, that they are using the statement of a few hardcore academics from Stanford, Cornell, and UC Berkeley--all colleagues from what I gathered from David Corn's article in the Nation (which is also thoughtful but somewhat skeptical.) www.thenation.com

I never trust the academic POV without a big grain of salt because it is very conservative and needs to be protective of many things, including ridicule by colleagues. Once something is labeled as tinhat, they run. Ridicule in the field is fierce. You can lose your whole career.

I don't know how to analyze the figures, but anyone can see that the situation in Florida is just way too complex and fishy to dismiss using statistics, demographic data, and academic explanations. It needs to be examined on the ground. They keep using the Dixiecrat explanation, when the same people voted to increase the minimum wage a dollar? And the visual evidence is stunning. Like on Olberman. He showed people standing in line. They didn't look like dixiecrats to me.

Many well-meaning people are still in cognitive dissonance. That is why we still need to get the truth out there. I am not good with numbers, but I know what I saw on election night. It was in plain sight what happened. I trust my sight.

[Nitro]

20. I poll monitored in Toledo, OH

At the poll I worked at, I'd say 99-100% of the increased turnout was there to vote out Bush.

[Stephanie]

29. And how did you determine that?

.

[Helga Scow Stern]

32. Really?

And all those black people standing out in the rain till 3:15 am to vote? Don't break my heart.

[idiosyncratic]

38. I don't think I believe that . . . eom

[juajen]

49. He said to "vote OUT Bush", not for *.

[nolabels]

19. So somebody is trying to put a new spin on it

The optical scan was dropped awhile ago by most, but they are trying to kick this information into the whole thing, very typical. Try and change the subject to something else or start more debates with evidence that's not part of the discussion

On edit check the poster post count, this is a waste of finger tapping, late

[Robert Oak]

23. they are addressing historic trends

which they are saying, based on history is within the margin of error.

I buy that one just fine.

What i would like them to look at is the variance in these precincts
and their divergence from the exit polls versus the other type
of voting methodology.

Now there it looks very fishy.

personally I'm thrilled they are looking at it for I have seen
some pretty "funky" use of statistics and having experts look
at this really helps to make sure all methodologies are being used
appropriately.

I also like how this article talks about 2000 being wrong as well
as a renewed demand for a secure national system.

[George_S]

25. No Fraud Necessary (redo)

This is from an earlier post:

Why commit fraud when you can simply manipulate the machine locations?

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

The voter use per machine time is far less for the op-scan machines than it is for the touch screens. Op-scan voters sit in a booth to vote and do so without a machine.

For example, if each vote took 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 the voting power.

In other words, place the touch screen machines in the more populated areas to help discourage the voters.

You would have to have 60 times the machines per capita in the densely populated areas to equal the voting efficiency of op-scan machines. All you would need is about 1% of the touch screen voters to give up and not vote.

I've been wondering why the machines were distributed like they were, and that could explain it. All the machine companies had to do was sell the two machine types where they wanted them to be.

No fraud, nothing illegal, and a guaranteed win.

This brings up two questions:

1) Did the machine companies know what the odds are of a voter giving up in relation to waiting time? My guess is that they did a study or know of studies that define the odds. The greater the turn out, the better for them.

2) Did the machine companies have a strategy to put certain machines in certain counties? If so, how did they accomplish that? Offering legitimate appearing deals would be the first guess.

[bones_7672]

30. Machine companies don't place the machines

The county Board of Elections are responsible for purchasing and distributing the machines. The machine companies just sell 'em.

[George_S]

34. I know, but they do set the price and make the sale.

[althecat]

39. Undoubtedly this is part of the mix of voter suppression

That said. In most Optical Scan counties in Florida a great deal more new Bush voters managed to cast their votes than Kerry voters.

In my mind this is the most suspicious thing about florida. I was never a huge fan of the Optical scan theory in the first place.

[George_S]

45. Example

I spoke to a young man who got on line at 11:30 am and voted at 7
pm. When he left at 7 pm, the line was about 150 voters longer than when he'd arrived, which meant those people were going to wait even
longer. In fact they waited for as much as 10 hours, and their
voting was concluded at about 3 am. The reason this occurred was
that they had 1 voting station per 1000 voters, while the adjacent
precinct had 1 voting station per 184. Both precincts were within
the same county, and managed by the same county board of elections.
The difference between them is that the privileged polling place was
in a rural, solidly republican, area, while the one with long lines
was in the college town of Gambier, OH. Lines of 4 and 5 hours were
the order of the day in many African- American neighborhoods.

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

See, all the companies had to do was say the machines were more capable than they really were. If the election officials believed them, the fix was in.

Looking at the map of Florida, the counties that have which type of machine sure doesn't look random, but looks planned. Maybe the same thing happened in Ohio.

[althecat]

46. As I say this is undoubtedly true.. that said

In spite of the obstacles a huge chunk of the Dem vote endured the queues and voted anyway.

I saw a pick of the long lines in Ohio in a thread a while ago... I wonder if anyone knows where it is.. it was at night showing a warehouse and a huge snaking line.

al

[George_S]

47. True, many voted anyway.

But what percentage would have to give up to give Bush the election?

[althecat]

59. Evidence suggests that the machines were flipping votes.

I.E. it would make a considerable amount of sense if the turnout numbers are correct. They are the first thing that will be found in an audit... but that the votes on electronic machines were switched.

This would explain why Bush made such strong gains in big blue states... he made huge gains in Illinois and NY for example.. but went backwards in CA.. why?

al

[RaulVB]

27. Florida numbers

They can't be explained by Republican rural voters or the "Dixiecrat theory."

Those "academics" are just trying to duck and cover. Their approach is too deny first, then the burden of proof is passed on the individuals pointing out to the discrepancies.

Is a basic logical stand.

[Helga Scow Stern]

33. Thank you.

And I have duly noted that your reply is precisely at 11:11 AM on 11/11, when Uranus is going direct on Karl Rove's spin.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

53. Suspiciously Cherry-picked.....

I do not buy this article. First off, these people tried to pass off that Democratic registration in ALL OF Florida had gone down from 89 percent to 69 percent over the last decade, when that figure was for Baker (a NE, FL/GA border county) only. This tells me they have an agenda...

This just seems a little too much of a "clean" sweep of the panhandle. Are we to believe that all 33 counties of the panhandle are of one mind, so that the numbers from these counties nearly ALL deviate immensely from the numbers of the "reasonable" counties?

If you count all northern counties 'panhandle' except those on the NE coast, there are 33 Of the 40 counties with seemingly flipped, padded, and/or skimmed numbers, 30 were in the panhandle. 8 were in the central portion of the state (not on a coast), and 2 were on the northeast coast.

Out of the remaining 27 counties with reasonable or marginally reasonable results, based on numbers alone, 2 were in the panhandle and the other 25 were spread around all other parts of the state. Now WHY would little Alachua county have such reasonable results, when it is in the heart of the panhandle, surrounded by these borg- like Dixiecrats?

I am a newbie, so forgive me that this post is so long, but I want to show these charts I made...Hopefully they will have some value to someone who is better at analyzing such data than I am.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/florida_map.html (Florida county map)

P -Panhandle (inc. all north Florida except NE coast)
NE -- northeast coast
WC-West central
C-central
EC-East central
SW-southwest inc keys
SC-South central
SE -southeast


TRANSPOSED or "FLIPPED" VOTES
COUNTY - Expected Rep - Actual Rep - Expected Dem - Actual Dem -Voting Equipment - FLA Loc.
Baker - 2,415 - 7,738 - 6,895 - 2,180 - Sequoia Op-Scan - P
Bradford - 3,072 - 7,553 - 6,663 - 3,244 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Columbia - 7,825 - 16,753 - 14,119 - 8,029 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
DeSoto - 2,413 - 5,510 - 5,630 - 3,910 - Diebold Op-Scan - C
Dixie - 968 - 4,433 - 4,988 - 1,959 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Gilchrist - 2,133 - 4,930 - 4,106 - 2,015 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Gulf - 1,928 - 4,797 - 4,874 - 2,398 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Hardee - 1,936 - 5,047 - 4,619 - 2,147 - Diebold Op-Scan - C
Hendry - 3,010 - 5,756 - 5,523 - 3,960 - ES&S Op-Scan - SC
Holmes - 1,171 - 6,410 - 6,036 - 1,810 - ES&S Op-Scan- P
Jackson - 4,339 - 12,092 - 14,127 - 7,529 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Lafayette - 440 - 2,460 - 2,755 - 845 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Levy - 4,594 - 10,408 - 9,940 - 6,073 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Suwannee - 4,236 - 11,145 - 10,035 - 4,513 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Union - 855 - 3,396 - 3,529 - 1,251 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Washington - 2,634 - 7,367 - 6,947 - 2,911 - Diebold Op-Scan - P

POTENTIALLY PADDED AND/OR SKIMMED VOTES
COUNTY - Expected Rep - Actual Rep - Expected Dem - Actual Dem -Voting Equipment - FLA Loc
Bay - 33,079 - 53,305 - 29,351 - 21,034 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Calhoun - 709 - 3,780 - 4,911 - 2,116 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Citrus - 28,809 - 61,813 - 27,039 - 29,271 - Diebold Op-Scan - WC/P
Clay - 45,877 - 61,813 - 20,794 - 18,887 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Duval - 139,605 - 218,476 - 174,965 - 157,624 - Diebold Op-Scan - NE
Escambia - 62,602 - 93,311 - 58,149 - 48,207 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Franklin 943 - 3,472 - 4,586 - 2,400 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Gadsden -*Dem won - 2,347 - 6,236 - 17,361 - 14,610 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Glades - 852 - 1,983 - 2,227 - 1,434 - Diebold Op-Scan - C
Hamilton - 755 - 2,786 - 3,994 - 2,252 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Highlands - 14,976 20,475 13,401 - 12,986 - ES&S Op-Scan - C
Jefferson *Dem won- 1,551 - 3,298 - 5,408 - 4,134 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Liberty - 237 - 1,927 - 2,667 - 1,070 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Madison - 1,238 - 4,195 6,605 - 4,048 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Nassau - 16,031 - 23,726 - 12,017 - 8,543 - ES&S E-Touch - NE
Okaloosa - 51,059 - 69,320 22,085 - 19,276 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Okeechobee - 3,622 - 6,975 - 7,124 - 5,150 - Diebold Op-Scan - C
Polk - 82,059 - 123,457 - 89,851 - 85,923 - Diebold Op-Scan - C
Putnam - 8,690 - 18,303 - 17,878 - 12,407 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Santa Rosa - 37,543 - 51,952 - 18,880 - 14,635 - ES&S Op-Scan - P
Taylor - 1,622 - 5,466 - 6,486 - 3,049 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Wakulla - 2,850 - 6,777 - 7,864 - 4,896 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Walton - 11,987 - 17,526 - 8,802 - 6,205 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Sumter - 13,851 - 19,794 13,004 - 11,583 - ES&S E-Touch NC
~~~~~~~~~
If you count all northern counties 'panhandle' except those on the NE coast, there are 32 . Of the 40 counties with unreasonable numbers, 30 were in the panhandle. 8 were in the central portion of the state (not on a coast), and 2 were on the northeast coast.
~~~~~~~~~
REASONABLE RESULTS (or at least SOMEWHAT reasonable, based on mumbers alone)
COUNTY - Expected Rep - Actual Rep - Expected Dem - Actual Dem -Voting Equipment - FLA loc.

Alachua - *Dem won - 30,887 - 47,615 - 56,111 - 62,348 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Brevard - 118,772 - 152,838 - 96,860 - 110,153 - Diebold Op-Scan - EC
Broward -*Dem won - 184,152 - 236,794 - 346,565 - 441,733 - ES&S E-Touch - SE
Charlotte - 35,806 - 44,402 - 25,435 - 34,227 - ES&S E-Touch - WC
Collier - 67,388 - 82,493 - 30,912 - 43,277 - ES&S E-Touch - SW
Flagler - 15,669 - 19,624 - 14,657 - 18,563 - Diebold Op-Scan - NE
Hernando - 31,303 - 40,137 - 29,428 - 35,006 - Diebold Op-Scan - WC
Hillsborough - 159,843 - 241,630 - 190,023 - 210,892 - Sequoia E-Touch **? WC
Indian River - 31,325 - 36,744 - 18,433 - 23,850 - Sequoia E-Touch - EC
Lake - 58,388 - 73,971 - 42,237 - 47,963 - ES&S E-Touch - C
Lee - 91,895 - 114,153 - 57,513 - 76,874 - ES&S E-Touch - SW
Leon - *Dem won - 34,165 - 47,902 - 73,214 - 79,591 - Diebold Op-Scan - P
Manatee - 63,489 - 81,237 - 47,384 - 61,193 - Diebold Op-Scan - WC
Marion - 60,279 - 81,235 - 55,427 - 57,225 - ES&S Op-Scan - NC
Martin - 37,953 - 41,303 - 19,905 - 30,149 - ES&S E-Touch - SC
Miami-Dade -*Dem won - 248,045 - 326,362 - 305,486 - 383,032 - ES&S E-Touch - EC
Monroe - *Dem won - 15,286 - 19,457 - 14,278 - 19,646 - Diebold Op-Scan - SW
Orange- *Dem won - 135,299- 191,389 - 154,938 - 192,030 - ES&S Op-Scan - EC
Osceola - 20,804 - 32,812 - 25,508 - 30,295 - Diebold Op-Scan- **? - C
Palm Beach- *Dem won - 144,679 - 174,233 - 204,000 - 275,030 - Sequoia E-Touch - SE
Pasco - 76,531 - 103,195 - 71,237 - 84,729 - ES&S E-Touch - WC
Pinellas - 175,947 - 222,630 - 169,789 - 222,103 - Sequoia E-Touch - WC
Sarasota - 93,552 - 104,446 - 60,833 - 88,225 -Diebold E-Touch - WC
Seminole - 82,869 - 107,913 - 60,037 - 76,802 - Diebold Op-Scan - EC
St. Johns - 45,678 - 58,802 - 24,272 - 26,215 - Diebold Op-Scan -**? - NE
St. Lucie- *Dem won - 30,272 - 38,919 - 34,288 - 43,367 - Diebold Op-Scan - EC
Volusia - *Dem won - 74,891 - 100,209 - 85,000 - 106,853 -Diebold Op-Scan- EC

[eowyn_of_rohan]

55. forgot to add this...

The charts show the number of votes expected, based on the number of registered republicans and democrats in each county, vs. the votes that were actually recorded at the close of the election; the type of voting equipment used, and the location of the county within the state

Out of 40 counties with HIGHLY questionable election results, 38 were won by Bush, and 2 by Kerry. Out of 27 counties with reasonable, or somewhat reasonable results (based on numbers alone), 9 were won by Kerry, 18 by Bush...

[IAMREALITY]

40. Glass Half Full

First off I'm really on the fence of whether I should let this story mean a thing to me or not. But regardless, my initial thoughts would be that this story/graph was really the first main theory spread to get the ball rolling and to help our cause gain steam. It has been a catalyst for the tons of other discrepancies now available. Even if it is debunked, it served its purpose, and a good one at that. It helped bring Votergate to the forefront and helped motivate other fact finding efforts. In reflection (days from now, weeks from now, years from now) I don't think any of us will regret our jumping on that story, but will instead view it as the start of the most important investigation in the history of our nation.

[bullimiami]

41. I emailed ms glesner

content:::



im sorry but you have a conclusion based on conjecture from those of us who think it very unlikely that the vote count is correct and those who think it is probably correct.

Really pointless. The solution is to go and hand audit a number of these counties or precincts and find out for sure if the unlikely happened.

Ralph Nader and others are in just such a process in New Hampshire. I believe it is going to show a wild difference between the actual and the reported. If it does not, I will be forced to accept that what seemed like the implausible happened, if it does I would think all of you sceptics stop trying to tell us we are crazy and go out and find actual evidence to base your reporting instead of opinion and conjecture.

thank you

[futurecitizen]

64. agreed

I agree completely. There are two issues here: what we want to believe because it gives us hope, and what is actually the truth. We have several items:

1. More votes than voters in Ohio. So far explained by claiming that the provisional ballots were split evenly across precincts for the purposes of tabluation. Also explains with the overage is identical in several places (supposedly). We need to verify that this is the case with several people in that area and isn't just something floated to discourage investigation.

2. The lockdown of the vote tabulation (in Columbus? don't remember). Explained because Homeland Security warned that the city was on alert level 10.

3. The flipping of votes in Florida counties. So far explained by the Dixiecrats, who apparently have been voting this way for years. We won't know unless there is a manual recount or someone goes from door to door and asks (which I intend to do if this remains murky). Our response is that a measure to increase the minumum wage passed overwhelmingly. I don't know if this was a statewide measure or not, but it's still within the realm of possibility that people approved it *and* voted Bush. Not saying likely, just possible. I feel that someone has to be on the ground in Florida and be walking the walk, if you know what I mean.

4. The EXIT POLLS. This, to me, is the most absolutely compelling piece of evidence we have that fraud occurred. The only way we can tell is by funding a recount, and even then I don't know how we determine that the ballots that are recounted are the actual ballots that were cast without contacting the voters and trying to somehow match their receipts (they do have receipts on the optiscan stuff there, right? We do in California) with the ballots. I'm assuming there are controls in place to prevent this level of fraud, but I'm not comfortable with the assumption.


My feeling is that our response should be fourfold:

1. We contact local media with email and opinion articles and let them know that we believe fraud occurred based on the exit polls.

2. We back up that claim by showing that exit polls are historically incredibly accurate, and cite numerous citations from mathematicians and statisticians. This becomes a media kit showing how incredibly unlikely it is that the polls were wrong in *only* electronic ballot precincts and wards.

3. We sign whatever petitions are available (there is one in the lobby now, and moveon just called for its members to sign one as well).

4. We *fund* the Green/Libertarian efforts in Ohio, the Nader efforts in NH, and the blackboxvoting efforts nationwide (helpamericarecount.org). Systemic evidence of fraud in any one state will call into question the whole election and hopefully illustrate to the christian right that their party is not exactly a guardian of righteousness.

Last, I just want to encourage everyone to SEE IT THROUGH, regardless of whether or not someone comes up with a plausible explanation for whatever question you may have. Those explanations, while plausible, may not be TRUE.

I don't know whether or not the vote was fradulent. The exit polls suggest to me that it was. I personally intend to do my best to find out.

[Carolab]

52. This is RIDICULOUS

How can we know ANYTHING without a full and proper investigation and without RECOUNTS?

Don't fall for someone else's explanation.

There is too much weird shit going on with the exit polls (which as we know Rove personally manipulated at the 11th hour), with the odd and unexplained percentage shifts to Bush in the 12 critical states, with the many instances where there were MORE votes cast than voters, etc.

Do not be swayed.

[The Flaming Red Head]

61. I agree with that 125%

I gave myself 25% extra in this vote just in case we need a mandate or some political capital on this fraud investigation.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Exit poll inaccuracy

The exit poll discrepancies are a problem that nobody in the Compliant Media has explained. But I haven't seen any data about which polls were inaccurate vs which ones were accurate. In other words were the bad polls ALL in critical states? Were the polls accurate everywhere else? That would be very interesting indeed if it were true.

It has been asserted here that in general exit polls have had an historically high accuracy rate. Does anybody have data to back that up?

Back in 2000 the exit polls in Florida were dead-on if you just took the 50,000 unexpected votes for Pat Buchanan and moved them over to the Gore column where they belonged.

I'm in WTF mode.

On a slightly different topic: suppose we flip Ohio back to where it belongs. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what would happen next? People willing to steal an election are hardly going to be deterred by some mere formality like who actually won. It would be nice to get it out in the open though.

Finally, perhaps this is actually all much ado about nothing, and while our voting system is haphazard corrupt and bizarre, not enough votes were stolen to actually alter the outcome. Should we go after it anyway?

I decided this morning that indeed we should, that the whole question of election legitimacy nullifies the media-supported mantra of the Bush Mandate for a Christian America. For that alone I think it is important to push this into the mainstream as much as possible.

[info being]

56. So there was likely fraud but it wasn't enough to affect the outcome

Oh...now we're supposed to feel better?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

62. Then they should have NO PROBLEM with a recount

Since they are so certain of their overblown Dixiecrat theory they ought to be glad to have a chance to PROVE IT!

[Nordic]

57. the article never addresses the "over 100% GOP" problem

It addresses the fact that large numbers of Dems may have voted Repub (a la Zell Miller) but nowhere in the article does it explain how more than 100% of the voters voted, or how there can be more votes than voters.

Bad article.

[Poor Richard Lex]

58. what EVER

this is just the author's opinion. Obviously more evidence needs to come out. We are in the investigative phase of this thing right now.

Everyone look at your state totals and see what you find.

[neohippie]

63. I used to live in the Panhandle for 12 years

I gotta admit that in some of those rural and north western north florida counties the democrats still resemble the dixiecrats, there is a bunch of Zell Miller, lovin ultra right followers of the sermon that tend to vote repug. But that article posted from wired online has a glaring weakness, and it strikes me as dissmissive without even bothering to take a closer look. The article just looks at one dimension of our election woes, the florida vote, and it just outright ignores many real problems with e-voting and our whole current voting process.

We need to push voter reform if we are ever going to be able to put faith back into the accuracy of our democratic process. What we have is electile dysfunction and we need to start a national discussion on how we should repair out problem.

[noiretextatique]

66. after 2000, does ANYONE really believe * "won" florda by 350k votes?

that assertion defies logic, considering the close margin in 2000, and the unpopularity of *. florida democrats wanted revenge bigtime, and as we know from at least anecdotal evidence, the trend seemed to be at least some republicans rejecting *.
it defies logic...there is a problem in flroida, again.

[high density]

72. Nothing we didn't already know

The thing about all of these "debunk" articles is that they all latch onto the same thing while ignoring the bigger picture about these poorly engineered BBV machines that have mangled and lost votes.

[fasttense]

73. THAT"S THE PROBLEM WITH THE DIXIECRAT EXCUSE.

If there was no evidence anywhere else, than maybe I'd buy into this Dixiecrat excuse. But there are problems just about in all the contested states and this should make any normal person wonder.