Proof of Vote Stealing was: Tampering Proof!

I asked ignatzmouse to look over some numbers I had posted days ago. Blessed be, look what he came up with! Thanks ignatzmouse!
Since he has but a few posts, he had posted the following in a now buried thread. It is far to keen to be buried for long, so here it is anew

ignatzmouse Mon Nov-08-04 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
137. Right in Front of Our Noses: Absentee Votes Prove Poll Tampering

Okay, I've spent the better part of the night with the NC voter numbers, and I've reached the conclusion that there is a stunning case for tampering. Let's start with one sample county. I pulled their election data that lists number of registered voters by county and breaks it down into party affiliation, race, and gender. I chose a predominately black county to give a sharper idea and get free of the crossover voter charge. Here are the demographics for Bertie County, North carolina as of 10-31-2004.

Bertie County has 14,460 registered voters:

Party Affiliation
12052 DEM 83%
1403 REP 10%
1005 UNA/LIB 7%

Ethnicity
8685 BLACK 60%
5633 WHITE 39%
18 AM.INDIAN
12 HISPANIC
34 OTHER

GENDER
8370 FEMALE 58%
6017 MALE 42%

So you can see in every category, this is a Democratic lock.

This is how the vote was recorded:

4801 Kerry/Edwards 61%
3027 Bush/Cheney 38%
35 Badnarik 1%
2 Nader -
7865 Total (a turnout of 54%)

On the face, it's shocking to see a 22% drop in the Democratic vote and a 28% gain in the Republican vote of registered voters. But, we have to be careful in the rural South even in a county that is mostly black. As a reference, let's also look at how the county voted in 2000.

DEM - A. Gore-J. Lieberman 4,660 65%
REP - G. W. Bush-D. Cheney 2,488 35%
LIB - H. Browne-A. Olivier 11 0%
RFM - P. Buchanan-E. Foster 17 0%
7,176

Hmmmm. Well, that shows a 7% swing from 2000 to 2004 for Bush/Cheney. A little hard to believe, but not totally impossible I guess given the possibility that this might be an overwhelmingly democratic black county filled with big Rush Limbaugh fans. Let's look at some further numbers from Bertie and see if they can shed some light.

Senate
Bowles (D) 5089 66%
Burr (R) 2614 34%
Bailey 51 >1%
Total 7754

Governor
Easley (D) 5592 73%
Ballantine (R) 2036 27%
Howe 66 .009%
Total 7694

Secretary of State
Marshall (D) 5,624 77%
Rao (R) 1,650 23%
Total 7274

Notice the Senate race also appears supressed for the Democrats. All other races in Bertie County ran roughly in the range of 73-78% Democrat to 22-27% Republican except for President and Senator. Recall that it was also vitally important for Bush to enter his second term with a substantive majority in the Senate. The same Republican Senate bulge can also be seen in Kentucky for Bunning and likely other states as well. My guess is that they got greedy in states with potential Senate seats and gave them an additional bump to help their majority -- probably making those results even further divergent from the exit polls. It also mirrors the previous data I posted on amendment vote correlation to presidential votes. The bigger the swing necessary, the larger the disparity with amendment votes. (See below for more.)

Now after many hours of going over these figures, I began to ask myself a few questions. If I were to set out to rig the election, how would I go about it? I would have to be smart. There couldn't be a paper trail for them to catch me. The fewer people in on the fix, the better - a programmer or two perhaps but anyone more could create too many loose ends that couldn't be controlled. It would have to be either in the touchscreen machine programming, an entry point in the tabulating computer, or in the main computer's software. Nothing with a paper trail. As we've seen systems with a paper trail came very close to matching the exit polls. Systems without paper trails were often well off the exit polls. BUT THERE'S ANOTHER PAPER TRAIL: ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

With that in mind, I decided to have a look at North Carolina's absentee ballots. It was hidden in the precinct data, so it took me a while to download it and go through it county by county. Incidentally, Lee and Catawba counties reported no absentees, so I don't know if they are missing or recorded elsewhere. But for the other 100 counties, the results are:

BUSH 529755 53%
KERRY 469522 47%
OTHER 2749 >1%
TOTAL 1002026


Interestingly, that's amazingly close to the exit polls, a 6% difference bewtween Bush and Kerry. The official statewide results, however, show a full 12% difference:

BUSH 1,926,186 56%
KERRY 1,492,058 44%
OTHER 12630 >1%
Total 3,430,874


And worst, if one subtracts the absentees, to see how the "vote" actually occurred at the polls, we see a 16% difference -- even further away from the reality of the exit polls -- and this is what they actually sampled!

BUSH 1396431 58%
Kerry 1022536 42%
OTHER 9881 >1%
TOTAL 2428848


Holy crap, Batman! The absentees are loudly pointing out the tampering, and I have a strong suspicion that they will prove similar in other states. Absentees are the largest real sample we have (more than a million in NC). Why else would they be SO FAR FROM THE POLL VOTE? THERE IS CONCERTED AND DIRECTED ELECTION TAMPERING!!! CHECK THE ABSENTEES and see how close they come to the exit polls in the states that are out of whack.

One final note...

The other benchmark I used previously was the amendment vote disparity: what percentage of voters voted on both the presidential election and on the state's amendments? Tellingly, North Carolina like Kentucky with a close and necessary Senate race had a horrible percentage. It leads me to believe that whatever fix they were using dropped off the amendment votes (i.e. if it didn't have an R or a D, it didn't register on the change). Just 86% of North Carolina voters seemed to have voted on their top amendment. Using Oregon's paper ballot standard of amendment-presidential vote correlation, it reveals a potential 439,066 missing amendment votes in NC. Dividing that number by the total votes cast gives a percentage of 13%. The figure must be considered a very rough estimate due to uncertainty, but again it is revealingly very close to the exit poll differential.

and simple enough for even someone like me to understand.

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","GOVERNOR","Patrick J. Ballantine","REP",2036,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","GOVERNOR","Mike Easley","DEM",5592,

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR","Beverly Eaves Perdue","DEM",5717,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR","Jim Snyder","REP",1682,

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","AUDITOR","Ralph Campbell","DEM",5233,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","AUDITOR","Leslie Merritt","REP",2004,

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","ATTORNEY GENERAL","Joe Knott","REP",1951,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","ATTORNEY GENERAL","Roy Cooper","DEM",5488,

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","PRESIDENT","George W. Bush / Dick Cheney","REP",3027,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","PRESIDENT","John F. Kerry / John Edwards","DEM",4801,

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION","June S. Atkinson","DEM",5299,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION","Bill Fletcher","REP",1932,

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","TREASURER","Richard H. Moore","DEM",5377,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","TREASURER","Edward A. Meyer","REP",1879,

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","US CONGRESS DISTRICT 1","G. K. Butterfield","DEM",5160,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","US CONGRESS DISTRICT 1","Greg Dority","REP",2215,

"BERTIE","11/02/2004","US SENATE","Erskine Bowles","DEM",5089,
"BERTIE","11/02/2004","US SENATE","Richard Burr","REP",2614,

to blackboxvoting.org
and
Randi Rhodes
and anyone who might act on it

and others involved in getting the word out.

Rhodes & Malloy and others on AirAmericaRadio are doing their best to get some action on the Vote Fraud.

(Forget Al Franken -- boycott him by not listening to him -- he is on the side of the corporate media blackout of FRAUD

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

From exit poll to final tally, without the paper trail, bush consistently came out ahead at least 5 to 6 percent.

Now, remember, to act with total authority, bush had to declare a mandate. It seems to me that his "mandate" is premised on his 51% to 48% "win" over John Kerry. Puny by Reagan's landslide, but bush never did need much to encourage his ego to go into overdrive.

Let's be fair, for now, and not allocate the entire 5 or 6 percent to Kerry.

Give 3% back to John Kerry = bush/48, Kerry 51
Yikes, Rove craps his pants

Give 2% back to John Kerry = bush/49, Kerry 50
That won't do

Give 1% back to John Kerry = bush/50, Kerry 49
That gives bush a majority percentage, but not enough to declare a mandate.

You can see real quick that in order to establish a "will of the people mandate," they had to really fudge the numbers to bump bush at least 3% above Kerry in the final analysis. Anything less would simply not have given them any standing whatsoever in presenting their agenda to the people.

This big of a swipe from John Kerry, however, cannot be done without making mistakes. We haven't seen the end of this.

It would be 100% for Kerry.

She is helping Ralph Nader with NH .

Olberman. This is irrefutable proof of election tampering.

I've sent it out to my email list and to the larger papers in the area: Charlotte Observer and Winston-Salem Journal. They might be in lock down, but if you keep hammering at the wall you may just find a weak spot.

Thanks for all your hard work.

Slam 'em. Bombing works. This will be our own 'Shock and Awe' campaign.

sounds bad indeed. in FL though we were encouraged to absentee ballot to prevent fraud, as democrats, so that could explain the difference. There's been better proof than this example, in the more important states that were close the day before the election. i.e. OH, FL.

In NC, if 1 million votes were stolen and we can prove it, add that to a million in Ohio, a million in Fla. and what do ya have? A Three million vote scam. Enough to get the bastards.

The heat is on in Ohio, and Fla. No reason not to turn it up everywhere else. Besides, there are a ton of DU'ers here from NC. We can't let the rest of yall have all the fun!

choice for a few of the ammendments and at least 6 other judgeships.

Same with my partner and a lot of other people I've talked to.

The votes "missing" for ammendments doe not prove a thing.

I think it's a factor of @5% of folks not exercising their full rights by not voting on the whole ballot. But what has been shown here is about an 15% failure rate/extra count. Now, if you have proof of a different factor, let 'er rip.

One area I reviewed as a possible signature of fraud was a ratio of amendment vote to presidential vote. Two avenues of tampering that I can think of would leave a trace if the ratio was substantially different for different voting systems. An undervote in amendment counts would indicate a hacker simply adding a number of votes for the candidate of choice, or a code flaw that switched (R) and (D) votes for instance but dropped those that didn't meet the party criteria like amendment counts. In NC, however, the amendment-presidential vote ratio is nearly identical in absentee and poll votes at around 86%. What do we draw from that?

I think it is safe to rule out simple vote adding by a hacker unless they were sophisticated enough to add votes in all categories -- not likely. (Of course, a hacker could still simply swap votes without throwing off the ratio.) For those states that suspect simple accounting adds as a source of fraud, I would say check the overall vote count from the polls and the absentee ballots and measure the ratio of presidential to amendment votes in each. If they're distinctly off, you may have someone or a tabulator doing candidate specific adds. If they're not off, you probably need to look elsewhere. Vote adds are simply too easy to spot as we have seen nationally in a few counties. My take is that those adds are likely to be just errors, not the real source of fraud. If we're dealing with this concerted of an effort, the people involved are going to be too smart for that (caveat: unless they panicked late in the game in a close state like Ohio that was needed to swing the election).

In states like North Carolina where the exit polls are far off the results, however, ruling out the amendment differential strengthens the case that the poll voting disparity was achieved by hidden programming either at the touchscreen level or in the central computer. It could be a vote flip of some kind or a tabulating percentage. Additionally, the percentages voting for and against Amendment 2, the amendment I first checked, are nearly identical in the absentee and poll voting -- but wait, isn't that suggestive that the disparity between Presidential and Senatorial votes might have been pushed in the poll data by a programmer? If the absentee vote is in agreement with the poll results on the amendments, it makes a strong case that the other results should also reflect parity. These are the results:

NC Amendment 2:

Poll Vote:
For 1655249 77.7%
Against 474431 22.3%

Absentee Vote:
For 679434 78.6%
Against 185101 21.4%


Hey now, that looks like a freaking match. After I saw that, I decided to take a look at the other amendments on the NC ballot. I wanted to really test the parity of the large absentee vote with the poll vote by hopefully finding a divisive amendment with close results. The importance is that a state amendment vote (except for possibly the marriage protection nonsense) does not have any *national significance*, so there is absolutely no reason to rig a state amendment if one were looking to influence national results. Get it? It simply doesn't matter in the national scheme and neither does it have an effect on any party's office totals, majorities, or policy/contract influence. At the same time, however, an amendment can be considered along the same lines of conservative (anti-tax) and liberal (public works/spending). If such an amendment presented itself, it could serve as a damn good benchmark for the correlation of the absentee and poll votes. If the absentee votes were weighted by a large influx of urban liberal voters, let's say, it would show up by forcing a clear disparity with the poll vote. If no disparity shows up between the absentee and poll results, then it makes an extremely tight case that the absentee vote is in sync with the poll vote.

Enter Amendment 1. NC Amendment 1 was asking for approval of a revenue bill that would provide funds for community development projects by increasing property values and therefore property taxes. Perhaps some North Carolinians can comment further on the meaning and specifics, but looking at the county demographics, counties with higher white Republican bases appear to have been more opposed to the measure. Heavily Democratic bases tended to favor it. The vote, like the Senate race, was very close with a slim majority in favor of it.

NC Amendment 1:
General Election Totals
For 1,494,789 51.2%
Against 1,423,195 48.8%
Total 2,917,984

Absentee Votes
For 432,697 51.7%
Against 403,475 48.3%
Total 836,172

Poll Results
For 1,062,092 51.0%
Against 1,019,720 49.0%
Total 2,081,812


The results are in lock-step! Now, how in God's name can the Presidential and Senatorial poll results be so divergent from the absentee ballots in NC -- nearly 15.4% on the Presidential side and nearly 7% in the Senate race -- unless there was election tampering? With the amendment parity, it cannot be argued that absentees which account for nearly 1/3 of all NC ballots (one million+) were out of balance due to a new influx of voters, demographic distribution, or otherwise. They are absolutely in sync and someone has obviously rigged the polls from where I see it.

Also, looking at the magnification of the Presidential vote, over 15% compared to the roughly 7% in the Senatorial vote, my guess is that it may be indicating a "vote flip" rather than a straight percentage gain. The larger the initial spread, the more it will be magnified in the results -- possibly explaining the Bush 15% lead over Kerry at the polls whereas Burr's gain over Bowles was 7%.

and amendment....very very strange behavior. Wait in line 1-3 hours to vote on an amendment?