Home Recent Changes WikiHelp
Last modified: November 11, 2004, at 07:19 PM

voter fraud Ohio voting machine

Did Bush Lose... Again?

Why did Florida voters with one type of machine vote one way, and voters with a different machine vote another?

In Florida, the figures show that, in counties with one type of voting machine, voters with no Democrat or Republican party affiliation appeared to split their votes roughly 50/50 between Bush and Kerry, which was to be expected; yet in counties with another type of voting machine, unaffiliated voters seemed to vote nearly 100% for Bush! Click HERE for a table that shows, county by county, how many registered Republicans there were (the vast majority of whom, polls and common sense tell us, would vote for Bush), how many registered Democrats there were (likewise for Kerry), and what percentage of registered voters turned out to vote (we can reasonably assume a roughly equivalent percentage of each party's base came out to vote). From those figures, they arrive at an "expected" minimum vote for each candidate. However, since many more people vote besides those who are registered Democrats or Republicans (i.e. Independents, unaffiliated, or members of some other party), the actual vote for each candidate is naturally going to be higher than the "expected" figure which is a projection based only on registered Democrats and Republicans. The table also then shows the actual vote, as of 98.6% of the vote tallied. Some Florida counties used an "E-Touch" voting machine, and some used an "optical scan" machine. Let's look at these two groups:

"E-Touch" Voters

Approx. 3.86 million total voters in these counties Kerry's Base: about 1.57 million votes* Bush's Base: about 1.44 million votes* Kerry's final tally: about 1.98 million votes 26.5% more than his given base Bush's final tally: about 1.85 million votes 28.6% more than his given base Conclusion: Close race, as expected, unaffiliated voters nearly evenly split between the two candidates

adjusted for turnout "Optical Scan" Voters

Approx. 3.42 million total voters in these counties Kerry's Base: about 1.43 million votes* Bush's Base: about 1.34 million votes* Kerry's final tally: about 1.45 million votes Less than 1% more than his given base Bush's final tally: about 1.95 million votes 45.8% more than his given base Conclusion: Virtually every unaffilated voter would have had to have gone for Bush! What are the odds??

adjusted for turnout

These two Florida populations who seem to have voted so differently are roughly equivalent in size and relative party strength. The only apparent difference between these voting groups is the type of voting machine used. Compared to anything within the range of what a reasonable analysis would have predicted, the counties with the "optical scan" machines went disproportionately, overwhelmingly, and illogically for Bush, while the counties with the "E-Touch" machines yielded results in the range of what could normally have been expected. It sure looks fishy! UPDATE: I have seen some sites mention the "Dixiecrat" phenomenon--that many registered Democrats here tend to actually vote Republican. However, that is not a sufficient explanation for these results. For one thing, according to a CNN poll, while 14% of Florida Democrats did indeed vote for Bush, 7% of Florida Republicans in turn voted for Kerry. The net difference--or anything even remotely close--is not nearly enough to account for the discrepancy. Further, even to the extent that such cross-voting affects the results, it seems highly unlikely that essentially all the cross-voters would be in counties with one kind of machine, and none in counties with the other. OTHER VARIABLES THAT HAVE SINCE BEEN CONSIDERED: Were Republicans far more effective in getting out their base than were Democrats? CNN again reports that Republicans made up 41% of the voters, Democrats 37%. Since Florida actually has more registered Democrats than Republicans, it is true that a greater percentage of Republican voters showed up at the polls. If members of the two parties had shown up in about the proportion of their party enrollment, you would expect the Democrats' percentage of the total to be about 4 points higher than that of the Republicans, rather than 4 points lower. However, again, this does not account for the figures above (even in comination with the "Dixiecrat" phenomenon), and again, would not be expected to show up in the voting patterns of people who used one machine rather than another. E-Vote machines tended to be used in larger/urban ares whereas optical scan machines tended to be used in smaller/rural areas, so without a random distribution of the type of machine used, the discrepancy could be based on those different perspectives rather than on the machine itself. This appears to be the strongest argument, I think, especially since the same case could maximize the effect of the other factors mentioned (i.e. it is more reasonable to postulate that the presence of more Dixiecrats or heavier Republican turnout was tied to whether a county was rural than whether it used a particular machine). However, even this explanation seems unlikely to explain a difference of this magnitude, especially in light of further analysis HERE which showed that, in mid-size counties (some of which used each type of machine), there remained a significant correlation between unusual strength for Bush and the use of optical scan machines. I'm not the kind of person who believes in conspiracy theories, and I want to be fair, but even with all these factors considered, things look awfully suspicious!

	But That's Not All...
Why were exit polls in crucial states wrong? Why were they all wrong the same direction, giving Kerry more votes? Why were they wrong in states with electronic ballots, but not in states with paper ballots? Why were they wrong only on the Presidential race, and right on other races?

	Although this information is not as thorough, it seems that exit polls were pretty accurate in states that used paper ballots, but were off in a number of the crucial states that, as it happens, used electronic ballots. And--surprise!--the ones that were off were always off in the same direction, showing that Kerry looked stronger than what the voting machines ultimately registered. Click HERE for a chart.
If there were problems with the samples in some states, it's odd that all the flawed samples would err in the same direction. And it would be odd for polls that were inaccurate in the Presidential race to all still be accurate in, say, Senate races, but that was the case according to this site. There is no logical reason for there to be a correlation between more accurate exit polls in states with one kind of ballot system, and less accurate exit polls in states with a different one. Again, it looks like something fishy may have been going on with the electronic machines in the battleground states... Click HERE for a site with some additional relevant information...

And just for fun...

According to this official web page from the State of Florida, 7,350,900 people voted there. According to this official web page (click the "U.S. President" link), 7,588,422 votes were cast for President. (3,953,890 for Bush; 3,572,938 for Kerry; 61,594 for other candidates.) Yes, as of 11/7, Florida is currently reporting 237,522 more ballots cast than there were people who voted.

And some more...

In one Ohio precinct, Bush was found to receive 4,258 votes to Kerry's 260. What made it particularly surprising is that only 638 people had voted. You can see the CNN story here. There were scattered reports of touchscreens that asked the voter to confirm a choice for Bush after they had selected Kerry. You can see this CNN story here. Honest errors? Sure, could be. But it is curious that all these errors always seem to favor the same candidate...

Comments? Send email to: info@thesquanderer.com

Listen to "The Squanderer" (parody of the old hit, "The Wanderer")

Powered by PmWiki
view edit attach print history