Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bingo! "Prima Facie" for New Mexico

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
 
indigoblue Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 11:42 PM
Original message
Bingo! "Prima Facie" for New Mexico
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 12:29 AM by indigoblue
I looked at the New Mexico data, and Bingo!



Justice of the Supreme Court and Judge of the Court of Appeals got very similar ratios of Dem vs Rep votes. In every single county, the Dem Justice and Judge candidate got more % votes than Kerry! If Kerry got the average % votes of the Justice and Judge democratic candidates, he would have got about 55,000 more votes.

It had been a real landslide, folks!

I am not showing the data here, but US House Districts 1 & 2 show very similar vote shifts to the presidential race, but District 3 is different. I am not familiar with him, but the Dem candidate, Tom Udall, appear to be a very popular guy across the counties, and I think they decided not fix the race.

(Edit: I didn't know about the other thread already started before me.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. Prima Facie

Yes, it is truly prima facie evidence, that is just by looking at the data on its face, something appears wrong.

But a closer inspection doesn't naturally lead to the conclusion you're making. Local candidates tend to be chosen according to different standards than national candidates, especially among Democrats. This kind of trend in Oklahoma, for example, is typical, so typical it is a baseline for trying to determine voter support for federal candidates running on platforms similar to those of local candidates. For example, if a local Democrat is running on a particular platform, a federal candidate using the same platform has his or her chances adjusted downward to this baseline. If an election didn't play out with local Democrats getting more support than Democrats running for a federal office, this is what would raise eyebrows.

In short, straight party voting is an aberration today. So-called independent voting is the norm. Just because people support Bill Richardson does not mean they will support his party, or even him, in a national race.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Castor beat Kerry by 6657 votes
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 12:07 AM by Patsy Stone
K: 3583544
C: 3590201 +6657

B:3964522
M:3672864 -291658

Yet, Bush had a huge vote total compared to Martinez.
That's with an abortion question on the ballot.

So, so weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
floridadem30 Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
54. I agree good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liam97 Donating Member (406 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. You should send to Kerry
with a cover note and to the Free Press people - it is prima facie but thats fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. Historically voters vote straight party ticket for judges. ->Prima Facie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yes, for judges ...

This is largely due to the fact that the average voter doesn't even know who their judges are, or if they do know, don't know much about them. So, they think, "I'm a Dem/Repub, and this candidate is a Dem/Repub" so that's who I'll vote for.

The same is true on a smaller scale for local candidates. Being relatively new to a large city and thus not accustomed to the more complex nature of voting for local candidates, I had no clue who my candidates were for city council, state rep, etc. Where I am from, this was easy. One rep for the entire county. OKC has several reps in the state house, and I had to figure out who was running in my district. Radio makes this harder since the commercials I heard might have been advertising a candidate running for a district on the other side of town.

I put out some effort and found out about my district, but a lot of people won't do that. They base their decision on party affiliation alone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
62. Not always party affiliation alone
Sometimes the results suggest people vote for judges and local races based on the ethnicity of their name. How's that for sucky in 2004?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politedem Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. "prima facie" - Oklahoma
The comparison with Oklahoma may not be revealing either. What is clear is that voting performed without transparent procedures is an exercise in futility. Let's hope the statisticians can isolate interesting issues and problems, but I won't count on anyone person or group until the voting procedures are made transparent. These problems are outrageous and embarrassing. Clearly they are intentional as well, because the citizenry is so "busy", we have no time to worry about real and significant details.

http://okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=344

Voting Machines Count Backwards in Okla.
by Bob Nichols Saturday, Nov 27 2004, 3:13am
bobnichols@cox.net
national / elections & legislation / news report

57 Rural Counties Affected - Vote Fraud Suspected

Rural Oklahoma Voting machines know how to count backwards.

(Oklahoma City) November 18, 2004 - Rural Oklahoma Voting machines know how to count backwards.

That looks like what the secretly programmed machines did for Sen. Kerry in President Bush's easily won Presidential Election victory in Oklahoma.

All 77 counties use the Optech Eagle voting machines and Tabulator's made by ES&S, Sen Hagel's republican company.

The respectable, conservative "Tulsa World" newspaper reported Nov 3rd that Kerry was winning in 57 of the states's rural counties., with 70% of the vote counted. Turns out that the famous November 3rd report was probably not supposed to be printed.

It represented the counting when the tabulating was about 70% "complete," as they used to say in the old Soviet Unon.

The "official" State of Oklahoma Election Board vote totals released later show Kerry not winning; but, losing in all the state's 77 counties, including the 57 rural counties. Yea, somebody really messed up, big time, and published a partially completed and, I guess you would haver to call it, "fixed" vote.

A simple comparison of total votes for Kerry between the staid establishment mouthpiece, the "Tulsa World" newspaper and the so-called "official" final vote totals at the State Election Board show fewer votes for Kerry in 57 counties than the "Tulsa World" does.

Fifty-seven of the 57 counties clearly demonstrate that Sen Kerry lost 37,982 votes to the ES&S Optech Machines. During the same time period President Bush gained a whooping 393,825 votes.

(read the rest at the above link...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
46. I'm repeating my post from another DU election thread..
...because it helps to have an example (and I want to explore a new idea).

An example from the OK stats:

Adair County with 70% of the vote counted
(Tulsa newspaper 11/3): Kerry 3,704 votes.

Adair County with 100% of the vote counted
(final results-CNN): Kerry 2,560 votes.

How could Kerry lose votes in the final count?
(Answer: Machines that count backwards.)

And this happened in 57 counties!
Here are a few more:

TulsaWorld newspaper-70% of the vote counted:
County--------GB--------JK
Adair---------2,137----3,704
Alfalfa----------920----1,075
Atoka----------839----2,897
Beaver---------807----1,114
Beckham-----2,811----2,343
Blaine--------1,537----1,792
....
Compare to the "FINAL" count from CNN--100% of vote counted:
County-----------GB---------JK
Adair -----------4,971-----2,560
Alfalfa----------2,201-------470
Atoka----------3,140-------1,946
Beaver---------2,271---------297
Beckham-------5,454-------1,931
Blaine----------3,199-------1,222
...
Votes Kerry LOST between the 70% and the 100% counts:
Adair-----1,144
Alfalfa------605
Atoka------951
Beaver-----817
Beckham---412
Blaine------570

I'm exploring an idea here, so indulge me. I think that one of the things these amazing stats help with is identifying or confirming the time period when the source code was activated to generate votes for Bush (and take votes from Kerry). The Tulsa paper printed partial stats (70% of the count) the next day because that's all they had when they put the paper to bed on election night (the first 70% of the counted vote). Presumably that last 30% of the vote--where the sharp bend toward Bush occurs (and where Kerry LOSES votes)--is the perceived late-in-the-day surge for Bush (when all the working poor and minorities vote--uhuh). That's also when they started mixing the Republican-controlled electronic result in with the Exit Poll data at CNN (Exit Poll data strongly favoring Kerry), and we all started staring at the TV screens with our mouths hanging open.

So it's sure looking like the tweaking of the source code occurred in the 4 pm to 8 pm period on election day--and that it was activated according to how events unfolded (a flexible fraud plan). Maybe they didn't know they needed these OK votes until later in the day (when things were looking really bad for them). Also, they had to start getting these "results" onto the screen to prevent networks from calling it for Kerry on the basis of his big numbers in the Exit Polls. I wonder if the electronic machines record the time of the supposed vote (I assume they do). It would be interesting to do a time study--looking for the phantom votes for Bush and votes stolen from Kerry (that are evident in that last 30% in this OK stat set). And also, the time-stamp of the votes that AP was feeding to CNN.

As with virtually ALL the statistical evidence so far--and it's really mounting up--what are the odds of innocent human or machine error ALWAYS favoring Bush? (Astronomical odds against it in the other studies.)

Posted by Al Bikr, at:
http://okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=344

From stats at:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2004/Final/A_10_11_3_2 ...
4.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states /...
/00/county.000.html

(Delete the paragraph returns from the above two urls before cutting and pasting.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
56. OK Stats ...

I've known about this since not long after it took place, so I know what's being alledged here. I don't doubt there was fraud in Oklahoma. In fact, referring to another argument I've been making elsewhere, I think fraud was more rampant in so-called "safe" states, especially those with a key congressional race such as we had, than in the more contested states. Not as many people looking, so it's easier to do.

The official story on this is that the Tulsa World accidentally published numbers from a previous election, the one on cock-fighting of all things. I don't fully buy that, but that is the story, and the numbers published do in fact match the numbers from that previous race, if what I've seen is correct. Why they did this is the question. The TW has a conservative editorial slant, but it's not the idiot rag that the Daily Oklahoman is.

In any case, referring to your original comment on this, as bizarre as they seem, Oklahoma political races are so predictable it's scary. The trends present here have been consistent for decades, ever since the socialists were put down by racists and oil men shortly after statehood. What is unusual about the most recent race is that it did buck the trend to some extent. Participation was up, early-voting was way up, and Republicans got even more support in more local races than they normally do. I am seriously worried about mid-terms.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #56
70. I have a dream...
"...the numbers published do in fact match the numbers from that previous race, if what I've seen is correct..."

It's such a weird mistake (if that's what it was), I think it should be looked at closely. You say the numbers match--how closely do they match? Are the cockfight vote numbers verifiable? (Were they obtained from the TW or official sources? And, if official sources, are they reliable?) Is there any other way to check what the results were at the 70% count point? (TV screen shot? SOS web site screen shot? A different newspaper?) Also, has there been any explanation of how on earth a newspaper could make such a mistake? The mechanics of the mistake? Who did it?

I wondered about this OK thing: Would they be so blatant? But looking at all the other evidence of election fraud so far, my answer to that was, "Yes."

Re: your concerns about OK voting trends. I think we are beginning to see the magnitude of the problem we face--with Republicans controlling the vote tabulation source code, often with no paper trail. We cannot trust ANY election results until this is changed. And now we have a Congress that is not only extremely unlikely to repair our election system, they could well make it worse. We have to fight for, a) a paper trail for every vote, and b) open source code, state by state, county by county, and can put NO FAITH in our Democratic election officials or party leaders who let this 2004 election catastrophe happen. That's what they did. They LET IT HAPPEN--and failed to even warn the voters or the campaign volunteers who worked so hard on their behalf.

They took our money, and our all-out effort, and gave us THIS.

Here's my personal pledge: If the Democratic Party leadership and K/E fail to come forward to challenge this election, and to help us GET BACK our right to vote, my forty years of voting for Democrats will be over, and I will join efforts to create a new political party that WILL protect my right to vote, and will scream bloody murder if anyone tries to take it away. I've put up with a lot from the Democratic leadership--from the Vietnam war to NAFTA (not to mention their votes for the Iraq war resolution--124 members of Congress dissented, most did not).

This is too much.

What I want to see is this (MY dream!). Early in January, when this election reaches Congress, a delegation of black House members will very likely arrive in the Senate, as they did in '00, needing only one Senator to sign their petition not to certify the Ohio vote (and maybe also the FLA vote). In '00, when it was the FLA vote in which tens of thousands of black voters had been disenfranchised, not one Senator came forward to sign that petition (a scene made famous with the news footage in "F9/11").

So here we are again. 2004, AGAIN with masses of evidence of suppression of black voters in particular--and other minorities, students, poor people and Democrats--by partisan Republican election officials in Ohio and FLA, and with evidence also of massive electronic vote fraud in FLA and a number of other states (at least a dozen of them).

I want to see John Kerry arise and sign that petition--or, better yet, I want to see ALL the Democrats arise and sign that petition.

As Martin Luther King said: I have a dream.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KatieB Donating Member (431 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #33
81. Same machine, same backwrds countg: Guilford Cnty, NC & Broward Cnty, FL
11/10/2004 Machine malfunction NC In Guilford County, ES&S early voting machines had capacity problems, which affected anywhere from 6,000 to 20,000 ballots. Story Archive

The totals were so large, the tabulation computer threw some numbers away. Retallying changed two outcomes and gave an additional 22000 votes to Kerry. Story Archive

ES&S explained that the Unity 2.2 tally software reached 32,767 (32K) and began subtracting from the totals (same as in Broward County). ES&S had known about the problem but not told its customers. Letter from ES&S (603K)

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/101045...
http://www.wral.com/news/3891488/detail.html
http://www.votersunite.org/info/GuilfordESS.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. So NM voters liked the democratic candidates for the judges
and they told exit polls they voted for Kerry (57%) vs Bush (43%) but the final tallies show Bush winning 50.4% vs 49.6% or just under 6,000 votes and you think that is proof of voting count fraud and manipulation? Perhaps, but the data needs further supporting analysis which a trained statistician could provide called tests of the significance of the differences.

Your data set appears to be set up to allow that to take place quite readily and essentially would say that the differences between the actual results and the survey results are possible by pure chance or could only happen if something made them happen. What that something might be is not evident in the data itself, but would be suggested by other factors like counties where the votes were tallied by touch screen voting machines vs. counties using the traditional voting ballot counting systems, or higher proportion of new registrations voting, or something like that. Keep working on it though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeireG Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. These numbers are bizarre indeed.
It is illogical that the presidential race is so far off the other races. How does this data look for the 2000 election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jagsd01 Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. New Mexico: who controlled the election machinery?
Fellow Dems, I want this to be true also, but...who controlled the election machinery? GOP Secretary of State? Counties? Thats where the fraud likely will occur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. No doubt SOS
HAVA gave them free reign, free of legislative oversight.

Does the governor have any power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Well, the SoS and Gov are both Dems -- BUT
please don't overlook the MACHINES. They can operate quite independently of the people who think they run the place, as you well know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepper32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
35. Good Question. I would be interested in knowing that also.
Very interesting data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
48. 2000 NM -- Is not a good benchmark --- many voting irregularities
I see that in 2000, the dem candidate running for the US senate got about 25K more votes than Gore in Bernalillo county (the only county I am currently looking at).

Also, in 2000 & 2002 NM had some problems with ballots disappearing into the ether.

Lost Votes in N.M. a Cautionary Tale: As Election Day Nears, a Look at Problems in 2000 Shows Fallibility of Machines
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22536-20 ...

Republicans to inspect impounded New Mexico ballots
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/04 /... /

In 2002, touch-screen machines made by Sequoia Voting Systems were implicated in a fiasco in a local election in Bernalillo county, New Mexico. The system registered only 36,000 votes out of the 48,000 that had been cast. It turned out that the error occurred after votes were downloaded from individual machines memory cards to a central tabulator: a software bug told the tabulator to ignore all votes cast above a certain threshold.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996523

The NM results for 2000 & 2004 results are ideed highly suspicious and require further investigation.

Bottom line America, these machines and their makers can't be trusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bj2110 Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. What's really unususal with these #'s is...
Both down ticket races generated more Dem votes (total #'s that is) than the Presidential race in all counties except one.. Very unusual indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Why?

Why is this unusual?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigoblue Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. The shifts of votes are too consistent
You should see some variation in the shifts. In only one county, where Kerry received more votes than the dem judge candidates, % votes for Kerry and the dem judges are almost exactly the same. I think it is very unusual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Again, why?

Why should the results exhibit variations in the shifts? Does a statistical analysis of New Mexico's voting trends bear out this suggestion? As I said in another message, in Oklahoma, these kinds of results are completely normal.

I'm not trying to be intentionally hard-headed about this. I simply don't want our efforts sidetracked, or worse still discredited entirely, by following unproductive paths of inquiry, finding some detail that may or may not be odd, and then shouting that we have "the proof!" without actually examining it. Some of the research into fraud has become encapsulated in a bubble that fails to consider anything but prima facie evidence. That will get us no where in the court of public opinion, and without that, we have nothing no matter how right we may be.

I don't see this as proof of anything related to fraud. The results, consistent as they are, are also consistent historically in general. I don't know about New Mexico specifically, so maybe there is something to this. However, no evidence at all has been presented beyond the raw data. Raw data means nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bj2110 Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I agree. This doesn't prove anything. Nothing that DU has put out "proves"
anything. But, these numbers are highly suspect. The only valid explanation for the consistent shift is that people who voted Dem on the lower tickets did so rather qually on the lower tickets, and consistently switched parties and voted for Bush. They keys here are that the variance between the numbers of people that voted Dem lower & Rep Prez had to dwarf the number of people who voted Rep lower and Dem Prez. While this alone may be possible, to see such a consistent swing over all counties raises a huge flag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Once again ...

What you are describing as the only reasonable explanation is historically consistent with voting trends in many states. What I am asking is if a statistical analysis of New Mexico's voting trends shows this to be an abberation.

If the answer to my question is yes, then this means something. What it means is not clear, but as you say, it's a red flag. But, be clear that the "red flag" only exists if the numbers violate a trend. If the answer is no, then this is merely reinforcement of the trend. We need to avoid drawing any conclusions until that question has been addressed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
42. People are working on statistical data from NM.
No news yet that I know of, but people ARE analyzing NM data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. Cool beans ...

I can usually interpret data once it has been analyzed to some extent. My brain turns to jelly however when I'm trying to interpret raw data.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #18
64. I would opine that Bush
has slightly more appeal to New Mexico than the average Republican presidential candidate.

He's from Texas and has been aggresive in trying to increase his Hispanic support for more than a decade now. It doesn't surprise me if he polled a few percent above what an expected Republican candidate would get. Look at just the last week. Two Hispanis to cabinet posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Most people don't even know what party
their Judges belong to. I've lived here in Wisconsin for over 10 years and I couldn't tell you about the Judges' party affiliation. So it becomes suspect when the Democratic Judges in New Mexico consistently get a higher percentage of votes than the Democratic Presidential candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. This can vary by state ...

Without looking it up, I couldn't tell you the state judges' party affiliation for my state either because these people are appointed officials on which the people vote retention. We're simply given a yes/no choice on the name, with no party affiliation attached. On more local races in which the judges run for election, they adopt a party affiliation and run on it.

Again, I am not familiar with New Mexico politics, but the numbers presented here appear to be reflective of the latter kind of race. Looking back a few years, I noticed that New Mexico voters vote on retention in some cases but also vote for candidates to the courts. (I don't know what the specifics are.) In those races, the candidates' party affiliation should be presented on the ballot. Noting for one of the positions in '96 and '00 that a Green was a candidate, this candidate received the same proportion of votes that would be consistent with voting for a member of a party and not just the candidate. Predictably, the Green candidate for appeals judge in '00 received more votes than did Nader in the presidential race.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. You can check for yourself here:
<http://65.160.159.96/County0.htm >

The party affiliation is given for the Judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. I'm aware of that ...

Naturally the results are being compiled this way. How else would the data that started this thread have been gathered?

I'm also suggesting it likely that the ballot on which people cast their votes declared party affiliation. Your previous suggestion about people not knowing what party their judges belonged to seemed to indicate that might not be the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhite5 Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
83. In a Presidential Election, it's never "normal" to have more votes...
in a Judge race than in the Presidential race itself. Think about how many times we have skipped voting in a judge race when we did not know anything about the candidates. We never skipped over the presidential race itself.

I cannot imagine anyone assuming this situation in New Mexico could be historically normal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. were the judgeships even partisan races??
In NC they aren't, they are not included on a straight party vote, you have to vote them separately.

If they are not partisan here either, then there is no way in hell more people voted for judges than for Kerry. I bet a lot of people decline from voting for judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #38
59. They are partisan ...

It's weird to me too since in OK these offices are appointed. The only vote the people get is whether to retain, and that isn't a partisan question.

But, races at the county level have partisan races for judges. I assume NM is like that only on a statewide scale.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
40. It's unusual
because most people who bother to vote for a congressman or judge would bother to vote for President of the U.S. Anything greater than 1% in this case is suspicious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. I'm missing your point ...

According to the data posted here, more people voted for Pres than voted for judges, which is, again, typical.

As for your last comment, anything greather than 1% of what is supicious for what? If you mean anything greater than a 1% shift from a party vote between different races, this is incorrect. This sort of thing happens with regularity everywhere and always has, even when party affiliation was a great deal more serious for the average voter than it is today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #51
60. Sorry, wasn't clear in my last post
The estimated votes are based on polling data, which was already showing between 10-15% of Dems voting for Bush. It wouldn't be suspicious if the actual % of Dems voting for Bush was in this range, but instead, shows that this number is actually 12-15% higher (meaning 22-30% of Dems voted for Bush). That's 100% off of expectations for Democratic voting trends. This is very unlikely.

It's not impossible, I agree with your reasonings above, but also not probably. There is reason to suspect that something is not right, be it through malfunction or fraud. However, given all of the strange data coming out of this election, as the group at Berkely found, it's unlikely that all of these statistical irregularities are a result of an accident. In fact, they found less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of that being possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #60
77. I can agree with that ...

My original point, if I may restate it in light of some other things said here and my own reflection, is that the data posted here is only one aspect of a very large problem, and this one aspect is not in and of itself damning. It is, I now agree, suspicious.

FWIW, I have gone back as far as 1994 and tried with what little data I could find to do a comparison. Based on totals alone, these numbers are off the line that would be New Mexico's trend by an unexpected amount. For example, the combined total Democratic votes for all judge races in this election was higher than at any point in the last ten years. Several mitigating factors may have contributed to this. I noted one "position," which has been held by a Republican more often in those ten years than by a Democrat, apparently owing to the popularity of a particular judge against less popular opponents. (I know nothing about her and so don't know what all might have gone into her selection.) Whatever the case, the numbers for that one race skewed the overall results so that Republicans appeared to have more support. Meanwhile, in other races, Democrats won by large margins.

In any case what's needed in the face of data like this is more questions, a deeper look into the data in an attempt to find the reason for the shift. My possibly incorrect interpretation of the original poster's comment was that this evidence was a smoking gun of sorts. The "Bingo!" comment is what led to that. It isn't a smoking gun. It is, as was also said, prima facie evidence, that is evidence that on its face seems damning but which requires more inquiry to determine its true meaning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
9. "Bingo, New Mexico: a new hit, recently released" posted at dKos
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/28/212245/85/1...

Fine work; thank you.

"Halt, Audit, & Prove My Vote Counts, Now" -- a bingo game coming to your State any time now........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senegal1 Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Sent to Buzzflash and
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 03:01 AM by shraby
Citizens for Legitimate Government and to Olbermann.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drunkdriver-in-chief Donating Member (267 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
22. I don't see what these arguments prove
Are you saying that because some dem candidates in NM out- drew kerry, that that proves kerry's totals were held down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. They were'nt just "some dem candidates"
they were a Justice of the Supreme Court and the Judge of the Court of Appeals. One would think if the people were going to vote for Bush (a conservative) they would vote for Republican Judges which ostensibly would be conservatives also. But that isn't what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReneB Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. question
if you vote, are those "Justice of the Supreme Court and the Judge of the Court of Appeals" candidats labeled with "Democrats" and "republi*" ?

or do just the names of the candidats appear on the voting sheet / machine?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Not necessarily ...

You're being logical. :-) Logic often does not apply to politics.

Oklahoma has a Democratic governor, several Democratic judges, and a Democratic Attorney General. The legislature is controlled by Democrats. Shrub got over 60% of the vote here. We just voted *for* a lottery, in direct opposition to the wishes of the fundamentalist power-brokers, and overwhelmingly for an anti-gay marriage amendment, for which those same power-brokers campaigned heavily.

I'm starting to feel like I'm typing to myself here. Applying a party average from a contest between several candidates to achieve an expected outcome for another race between two specific candidates is not a statistically sound practice. It will fail more times than it doesn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #23
65. Not in Dixie
There are still places down here where there isn't an elected Republican in the county, but for president, the county votes Republican.

Used to be that way all over down south, but many of the Yellow Dog Dems aren't Dems any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
28. I truly do not understand what this proves...
Kerry ran behind local Dem candidates in most place.

In Kentucky, the Dem almost won the Senate race.

Does that mean Kerry should have almost won Kentucky?

All politics is local, & Kerry lagged local candidates, because he was not generally popular. Whe you have a national candidate with a large lead, he or she can have a coattail effect, & help local candidates increase their vote totals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
43. There's Kentucky... and then there's New Mexico.
New Mexico showed indications it was going to swing to Kerry before the election, and they didn't give a final vote tally until Nov. 23. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041123/pl...

Kentucky going red was never in question. But the administration would have a lot to lose if they lost New Mexico. Thus, it is more likely there would be fraud there.

And then, in Kentucky you probably get a fair amount of those Dixiecrats, so I'm not sure we can trust most Democrats to vote Democratic there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #28
69. Assumptions about this election...
"Kerry ran behind local Dem candidates in most place(s)."

I think we should be careful about making statements like this, in regard to THIS election. A far more reasonable assumption--given the "means, motive and opportunity" that Bush Inc. forces had to alter the election results (easily hackable, highly insecure machines manufactured by companies run by highly partisan Republicans; total control of the secret source code for the central vote tabulators; no paper trail in a third of the country; a past history of pathological lying and at least one other stolen election; no evidence of conscience or political ethics)--is that wherever Kerry ran behind local Dem candidates is a LIKELY place for fraud to have occurred, and should be red-flagged for intense scrutiny.

Your statement is also too general. What do you mean by "most places"? We need some stats on this. (Kerry got over 55 million votes even in the Republican-controlled results--that's a lot of votes.)

Normal political wisdom can be useful is trying to analyze these highly suspicious election results, but it can also lead you astray. What if the plan was to grab %'s all over the map to pad Bush's popular majority? Then "most places" become scenes of the crime, and what happened in "most places" cannot be used as a guide or standard for what happened in a particular place.

There is already considerable evidence that the fraudsters grabbed %'s in several places (FLA, NC) in the portions of the vote that were electronic (as opposed to other voting methods such as absentee ballot). Every electronic vote--especially with no paper trail--should therefore be held in suspicion, even in big Kerry states. (The Berkeley study found some 200,000 phantom votes for Bush in FLA's three biggest Democratic counties!)

And I think we can assume as part of a working hypothesis (until proven otherwise) that the fraudsters were politically well-informed and made judgments about what would "fly" politically, in altered results. This may have included knowledge of past differences in a given state between the presidential vote and the lower ticket votes (a judgment that I suspect was part of the fraud plan in NC).

At this point--given the evidence of fraud that has already been developed--we need to make a presumption of fraud everywhere and look for red flags. These New Mexico results are at least that--a red flag. On the face of it, the New Mexico results seem absurd--rather like the NC vote in favor of an increase in the minimum wage over the federal standard, and at the same time giving Bush a 12% vote margin in NC. It makes no sense, and on further investigation, guess what? The 30% absentee ballot/early vote gives Bush only a 6% margin, identical to the Exit Poll data, while the 2/3 electronic (& punch card) vote greatly diverges from the Exit Polls, always in Bush's favor (a 15% margin!).

The analyst (ignatzmouse) started off with an uneasy feeling about the big Bush margin in NC (and also about the Senate race--the popular Dem, Erskine Bowles--losing). Trust those instincts, I say! If the vote doesn't make sense, look deeper--even if "political wisdom" provides some kind of explanation.

NC analysis:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06

The Berkeley study:
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu / (Scroll down to VOTE, 2004 - Working Paper: The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dewaldd Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
29. How did Kerry do district-wide, compared to congressional candidates?
Something is screwy here.

Maybe it was the judges' race that had problems?

However, the Republican judges always had fewer votes that Bush--as would be expected. But the Democratic ones always had more than Kerry--highly suspect.

We need to compare the district-wide numbers for prez to the corresponding congressional races. This info is not available on the SOS website.

The Secretary of state in NM, by the way, is a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFox Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
30. "Bingo! "Prima Facie" for New Mexico" proves nothing
I'm sorry, bt those numbers truly prove almost nothing. I am a NM Democrat and worked hard in the last election. The Democratic appellate judges were appointed by Bill Richardson and they are all INCUMBENTS! In judicial elections incumbents win even more often than in elections where people have a clue.

Moreover, the largest newspaper in the state endorsed all of these incumbent judges, while endorsing Bush. The paper endorsed the incumbents because they had been screened by an appointment process and because the Republican candidates ran a rather childish campaign to "take back the courts."

I worked at the polls, and there were some serious problems and excessive uses of provisional ballots. However, the judicial races are poor indicators of anything but the natural tendency to vote for incumbents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornblue45 Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. NM Judges Were Incumbents, as was Bush
I agree -- as someone who phone banked extensively as a a volunteer in Dem HQ in Santa Fe, NM-- that the judicial races returned incumbents who were endorsed by both mainstream and alternative newspapers. I think the numbers cited prove nothing about the Presidential results in New Mexico.

In phone banking, some registered Democrats were very anti-Kerry because of his stands on abortion and gay marriage. These voters told me they would never vote for Kerry but did not say they were voting for Bush, and maybe just didn't vote in that race. Other registered Dems told me they were voting for Bush because they were afraid to change leaders in wartime and that Kerry had not shown them he had a better plan re Iraq.

Republicans working at the provisional ballot count in Bernalillo County openly said their role was to challenge ballots. Dems like me were instructed to observe, record and report, not to challenge. If there are problems with the NM count, in my opinion it is in the processing of provisionals; but the requirements are complex and in my opinion need to be streamlined. For example, ballots were disqualified if the voter did everything right(affadavit, ID, etc and in right precinct) but signed with a name that was in any way different from the name on the voter registration roll. I think that sets the bar too high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Hi bornblue45!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFox Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
52. Provisional ballots not helpful
I was a poll watcher and voter protection worker. At the precinct I watched, there were problems with fully 20% of the votes cast. A large number of provisional ballots were cast by voters who showed up at the wrong place, and it is unlikely that many of them filled out all of the forms correctly. Moreover, when we counted the machines, 8% of the voters had not voted for president! They probably pushed the button twice and cancelled their own vote. It is a shame, since the precinct went 70% Kerry among the 80% which did count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Hi DesertFox!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tobybear Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. How did Gore do in 2000 v. judges (may shed more light)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFox Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #41
58. Gore win in NM vs. judges in 2000 fairly consistent with 2004
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 10:29 PM by DesertFox
In 2000 3 of the incumbents for Court of Appeals, including 2 Democrats and one Republican, were re-elected. The Republican winner, Jon Sutin was a highly qualified candidate who changed parties to Republican because he was appointed by a Republican governor previously and lost in the Democratic primary to someone whose name had more appeal. After his second appointment, he ran in 2000 and was was endorsed by every conceivable paper. One Republican incumbent lost. That was Rod Kennedy, who lost to a very highly respected appellate lawyer. While I like Kennedy, he was he was not a darling of the media as a trial judge. Kennedy was also appointed again and ran again two years later and won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. Hello, DesertFox.
Interesting first post. Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFox Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. Welcome to DU
Thanks. It is an interesting discussion, but I think we are on the wrong track with judges. Frankly, they should never be elected, and their results are often out of sync with other races.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
49. have to agree, prez totals exceed the judge totals
you have to find specific precints where there was a ton of votes for the judge but Kerry votes were off by double digits.
although with it being so close, only a few votes per precincts needed to be peeled off to shift the balance.

we need someone to come forward and say they screwed with the tabulators before this really breaks

but I'm glad there are recounts in NM, OH and NV now, that could shake things up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seaclyr Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
31. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
32. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
39. And then there is the weird count in Colorado
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-28-04 02:44 AM
Original message
Colorado election totals look "funny"

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election /


Renewable energy is a democratic issue.. Salazar was a democratic candidate..

Do we really believe that democrats who were chomping at the bit to vote, voted in the numbers they did for Salazar and renewable energy, and totally flipped an voted in the same numbers.. for * ???

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



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Yes, whole state government flipped to the blue side.
But then, this is a pretty schitzophrenic state.

Lax marijuana laws and hidden weapons permits.
Columbine High School and Focus on the Family.
Started Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and started Columbus Day.

Still, if my Denver neighborhood was any indication, Kerry won this state in a landslide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. No...
...I don't believe these CO numbers, not at first glance anyway. They seem completely absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
57. Now that's interesting ...

Not because of the Senate race itself, but in combination with the renewable energy question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pointsoflight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #39
63. Yes, an odd pattern.
I live in CO. A dem won the senate seat and the state congress flipped to the dems too. A renewable energy bill passed. And a referendum for light rail service also passed despite alot of campaigning to crush it.

The state might be worth looking at, but results could also be real. CO has an odd mix right now and is in real flux. The rural areas are heavily republican, but Denver/Boulder is heavily democratic, and at the same time, the state has been getting a heavy influx of new people moving from CA (and somewhat less so from TX). Overall, CO has traditionally been a red state, but is trending blue.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we have a very right-wing republican governor who has pushed inane policies and burned alot of bridges. Many believe that the local races went blue as a backlash against the governor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trudyco Donating Member (975 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #63
76. What was the state gov races like by county?
I'm from CO, too. Live on the edge of Boulder where the blue starts turning red. I was surprised about Broomfield county. I thought they'd be blue. Was wondering how the national outcomes matched to local elections by county since our state gov turned blue.

People were saying Salazar got it because he was hispanic and more conservative, but I didn't think we had a dixiecrat history. In the past the blue parts of the state voted blue, the red voted red ... mostly the red won. Maybe hispanics voted Salazar and the shrub but nationally he only got 44% (i bet less) of the hispanic vote. So unless there was a big hispanic split from salazar/president I don't see how this happened without using the F word.

trudyco
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
55. New Mexico Voting - Danaher, ES&S, Sequoia
Verified Voting (god bless them!) says:

Danaher e-voting: Benalillo, Cibola, Colfax, Grant, Lea, Mora, Sandoval, San Juan, San Miguel, Socorro, Taos

ES&S Opscan- Precinct Based: Curry, Catrow, DeBaca, Eddy, Harding, Hidalgo, Los Alamo, Luna, Quay, Roosevelt, Santa Fe, Union

Sequoia e-voting: Chaves, Dona Ana, Guadalupe, Lincoln, McKinley, Otero, Rio Arriba, Sierra, Torrance, Valencia

Any there any evidence of any differences in voting pattern between counties?

Question for someone who knows voting systems: What does it mean to say "Opscan-Precinct Based" as opposed to "Opscan"?

Question for someone who knows New Mexico: Is "Chaves" named after Caesar?

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
61. Judge to rule Tuesday on part of challenge to Bush victory in Nevada
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/ar...

Judge to rule Tuesday on part of challenge to Bush victory in Nevada

SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer
Monday, November 29, 2004

-snip-
A judge intends to decide Tuesday whether to allow a legal
challenge to move forward aimed at blocking Nevada's five
electoral votes from being cast next month for President
Bush.

Washoe County District Judge Peter Breen said Monday he's
considering setting an evidentiary hearing to determine
whether there are grounds to keep the votes from Bush -- who
carried Nevada by 21,500 votes -- due to allegations of voter
registration fraud and claims some voting machines
malfunctioned.

-snip-
"President Bush is claiming he has a mandate and included in
that is that the state of Nevada stood behind him. Even if
Nevada's five electoral votes will not change the election, it
does have an impact on whether Nevada is part of that
mandate," Dickerson said.

`If there are disenfranchised voters who were illegally
disenfranchised ... then those voters are not having their
will voiced," he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #61
66. kick awaiting Nevada judge ruling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Florida_Geek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
67. indigoblue,,, How were the two Judges listed on the ballot
with or without Party.

It is my opinion that a percentage of votes for all contests where a Party label was attached was shifted from Dem to Repug. I would bet the Judges were not listed with party labels.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFox Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. Judges were listed with party affiliation
That is a red herring. Judges were listed in NM with party affiliation. There was not a shift in NM from Dem to Rep. Gore won by a few hundred votes in 2000 and Bush won by 6,000 this time, after more than that many provisional ballots were thrown out. In both years, the result was within the margin for error in the voting system. NM was, and is, a purple state.

It is also interesting that Gore squeaked by under a Republican governor and Bush squeaked by under a Democratic governor. In both cases, the governor had been elected by convincing majorities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truman01 Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
71. Is it possible that for various reasons
that some people, even democrats just didn't want to vote for Kerry. I know this is hard for us to believe, but it just isn't out of the realm of possibility.

The problem with voting patters and statistics is that they can point to irregularity but they prove absolutely nothing. The votes, as they were counted and verified (or not), get a very strong presumption of validity. In order to disturb those votes in any way you need SERIOUS proof of wrong doing, not just theories and statistical analysis that is probably indicative of voting irregularity.

In the Ukraine, armed men loyal to one side stormed polling places and beat voters for the opposition candidate. Now THAT is voter suppression and fraud. This is why we have not wanted to recognize the election.

I think, absent some diebolt technicians coming out and confessing with proof in hand, we are looking at a January 20th recorination of George II.

Let's turn this energy into refining our message and electing people in 2006.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Sorry, I don't buy it that people show up just to vote for a judge. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truman01 Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Me either, but that isn't what I said,.....
People do show up and vote Democratic in their state races and Republican in their federal races. Very very common. Look around, until this past election in GA we never had a republican house, senate, or Governor. Yet, the Dem President hasn't carried this state since Carter, and before that since JFK.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. This was different
to those elections. Virtually the whole nation was up in arms to get rid of *.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truman01 Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. I don't know where you live, but where I live
The whole nation hated Kerry and loved *. It's not easy being blue int the south.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #71
78. Point well taken, I guess, but you'd *think* they'd vote for someone???
Edited on Tue Nov-30-04 09:51 PM by Lil
. . . or maybe not??? I'd like to be able to double check the ballots. That being said Re:

"Let's turn this energy into refining our message and electing people in 2006."

I don't think 2006 will matter if we don't get the machines/electronics/software fixed with varifiable ballot.

I'd prefer back to pencil and paper, but that probably won't happen. I live in Australia now with paper& pencil. It is all very fast, cheap and honest. Also - non parisan elections offices here. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhite5 Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #71
85. Collecting and Analyzing Statistics is Essential
The value in looking at statistics and analyzing them is that they can show graphically WHERE we need to take a closer look -- like where recounts are needed or where provisional ballots need to be looked at again.

Statistical analysis is the most valuable step in pointing out discrepancies and pointing investigators in the right direction.

Do not discount their value.

And I agree with others here, if these problems are not met head on now and solved, all future elections will be meaningless. People will stop voting. People won't work on campaigns. We may just not bother with holding elections.

It is THAT serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobbes199 Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
79. Problem with these judge ones...
Is that Judge's partisanship usually isn't listed on the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobbes199 Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Has anyone looked into...
The tendecy for candidates listed first to receive more votes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
82. Someone needs to do study of absentees vs totals like N.C. Study
Its fairly easy to do a comparison of absentee votes by Bush vs Kerry
versus total votes by Bush vs Kerry by county and look for strange patterns; absentees(plus provisionals where they are auditable) make a very large sample that gives good indication of pattern in total vote. Can be used in addition to the above.


Unofficial Audit of NC Election: Comprehensive Case for Fraud

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

This is a pretty good case for fraud in North Carolina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigoblue Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
84. NEW THREAD!
I started a new thread with more data at:

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

I accidentally deleted the picture of the table at the Flickr.com and cant replace it anymore. Sorry :cry:

Thank you for a lot of good comments and ideas!
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 Mon Apr 23rd 2018, 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC