Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Need debunk info quickly, RE: Florida "Dixiecrat" Opti-Scan Counties and

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform

demodonkey

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-01-05 10:30 AM
Original message

Need debunk info quickly, RE: Florida "Dixiecrat" Opti-Scan Counties and

Edited on Fri Apr-01-05 10:35 AM by demodonkey

alleged Miami Herald "study" that the exit polls were wrong... please help refresh my memory, I need debunk ammunition.

This "study" was used in my state yesterday as an argument against optical scanners and VVPBs in general (argument was basically that nothing is any better than the paperless DREs when compared to the "wrong" exit polls).

Weren't those "Dixiecrat" counties on CENTRAL-count Optical Scan systems?

Didn't the polls in those same "Dixiecrat" counties match the results until 2000?

What theory was finally figured out about the Optical Scans (the places where they didn't match the exit polls; as I recall this happened in more places than just the "dixiecrat" areas?)

Any info appreciated!

MB

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

garybeck

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-01-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message

1. did you talk to Bernie about this?

he seems to have all the FL data.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mopinko

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-01-05 11:11 AM
Response to Original message

2. can't really help, but

i think randi rhodes pointed out that fla has closed primaries. so these dixiecrats are apparently voting in democratic primaries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bill Bored

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-01-05 01:26 PM
Response to Original message

3. It's very complicated and there's a lot of mis/disinformation around.

Edited on Fri Apr-01-05 01:29 PM by Bill Bored

We KNOW that paperless DREs are less verifiable than Op Scans. This is one reason not to rely too heavily on the exit polls as they did not always deviate according to machine type. But there are reasons why this may be true and past performance is no guarantee of future results anyway. Any system can be hacked, or not, for any given election!

See these links on the Dixiecrat counties:

<http://residentbush.com/Aftermath-2004_Florida-Results.htm>
<http://ustogether.org/election04/mitteldorf/Liddle.htm>

2000 was not much different. Same trend to a smaller extent. Somewhere on the ustogether site, there's a comparison between 2000 and 2004 but it's hard to find now.

Both Op Scans and DREs can be hacked! OBVIOUSLY, Op Scans are better than PAPERLESS DREs. You can't verify the vote at all on paperless DREs. If they want to debate DREs w/VVPARs, vs. Op Scans, that's another story. So see this page:
<http://www.nyvv.org/paperballotVsDRE.htm>
Op Scans are still better!

In general precinct count Op Scans are better than central count because the voter can be given a chance to correct errors on the ballot before it's cast, but this is true ONLY if the ballot reject options in the scanners are turned on and configured appropriately. This may be done from a central point using Diebold's GEMS system with their scanners, in the same way their DREs are configured. So if someone wants to mess with a Diebold "Accuvote" system, Op Scan or DREs make little difference. They can do it because they are both configured through GEMS. DREs are still worse though.

See this post from last night about how GEMS can be used to screw up Op Scans and DREs alike:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x351376#351709>

So like a lot of things in life, it's not so simple.

A lot depends on the PEOPLE running the election and the PROCESS in place to guarantee accuracy. You need checks and balances to keep everyone honest. But with paperless DREs, there is not even a CHANCE of independently verifying the vote count. With any kind of Op Scan, you can do a full manual recount or random audit any time you want, (until the paper is destroyed). And before and after the election, you can use test decks of ballots to see that the machines are counting properly. Paperless DRE recounts are meaningless and you have to rely on so-called "Logic and Accuracy" tests which themselves are not verifiable.

Hope this helps.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

berniew1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-02-05 02:04 AM
Response to Original message

4. There is no documentation of problems with optical scan in Florida, but

there was major manipulation of registrations, absentees, provisionals in optical scan counties- similar to the touch screen counties.

But tabulator results of optical scan systems are as easy to manipulate as in touch screen counties, except that there could be a hand count that would catch this.
And there is no system in Florida to audit or prevent tabulator manipulation.
Hand counts are unlikely and have never been required in Florida. Most recounts are simply machine recounts.

I've seen no conclusive article on the Miami Herald recount. The article and data in the Seattle Times indicated that the recount found significant problems indicating Kerry might have won Florida if similar patterns were true throughout Florida. But the Miami Herald article said that their study showed no significant problems in the DixieCrat optical scan counties.

All 3 county recounts found Kerry should have gotten more votes. One counties difference was 0.3%, but the big question was in Suwanee
County, where the Herald abandoned the recount and did not do a complete recount. The percentages of the precincts sampled could imply that the recount would have resulted in a huge swing to Kerry. But the article didn't indicate which precincts were recounted, as minority precincts in all counties in Florida voted strongly Kerry. Maybe they only sampled the minority pricincts is the reason for the big Kerry swing indicated.

The biggest swing in Florida was in the touch screen counties, where most of the population is. But there were also problems in optical scan counties
http://www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla2.html other counties
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html summary

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eomer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-02-05 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. Regarding Suwannee County

Edited on Sat Apr-02-05 06:28 AM by eomer

Bernie, you are right when you say that the precincts selected in Suwannee County were the reason for the apparent Kerry gain.

Shortly after the Miami Herald article came out I emailed the reporter and she replied with the precincts that were recounted. When you look at just those precincts then the Kerry gain is modest like it is in the other two counties.

I don't have any of that info readily available because my hard drive failed sometime since then. If anyone can search DU there's at least one extensive thread on this subject. Read it carefully because early on there was excitement based on the extrapolation in Suwannee County but it didn't pan out when the precincts were known.

P.S. to Bernie, I'll email you later today about your other research.

On edit: Google is your friend! Here is the DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x91921 Remember that the conclusion in the original post of this thread turns out not to be valid. Look towards the end of the thread for the corrected conclusion.

and here is the Miami Herald article (couldn't find it in the Herald online but the Tallahassee Democrat seems to have picked it up): http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/10286145.htm

and here is another DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x93139

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

berniew1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. Some still suggested there was a question about why other 40% withheld

From what I saw, some still questioned why the other 40% weren't looked at. Did you resolve that to your satisfaction?

Since manipulation could be on a precinct level, why would one think the other 40% had no problems? Were the precincts recounted done on a random basis, or did someone choose to withhold those precincts?

and if so, what was the reason given?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eomer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. I sent a second email to ask how the precincts were selected

and the reporter just replied "randomly". I emailed one more time to ask what she meant by randomly and she replied that she had moved on to another story but thanks for my interest (no answer).

So no, I wasn't satisfied with the explanation of how they chose the precincts, or how they chose the 3 counties for that matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

berniew1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #8

13. since they had cooperation; its clear the SOEs thought there was no proble

a place with problems would not have allowed it; or given access to precincts with likely problems

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bill Bored

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Were these actually hand recounts?

And WTF ever happened to RecountFlorida.org, or whatever it's called?
Can't even find them in google, but I know they're out there!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eomer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. Yes, they were manual counts.

Here's the Recount Florida website: http://www.recountflorida.com/.

Seems like they didn't get anyone willing to do any recounts. My part of the state (South Florida) is all touchscreen so no ability to do recounts down here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

berniew1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #9

14. but there are things that can be done that can have effect

check precinct logbook counts of voters to official totals
assess breakout of regular vote, early vote, absentees, undervotes,
and look for unusual patterns
compare 2000 and 2004 votes by precinct, and assess re: EIRS reports for that precinct

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

adolfo

(525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-05-05 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #9

18. Still here

We were unsuccessful in gathering momentum towards independent recounts. We are just a few volunteers with limited resources donating spare time investigating the 2004 election fraud. Unlike Ohio (they charge $0 to inspect ballots) the fees can be huge when recounting more than a few precincts.

I�m hoping for someone to conduct at least a few county-wide recounts but I will not hold my breath.

The web site will be kept available as a resource for anyone interested in investigating their county/precinct.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TruthIsAll

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 10:40 PM
Response to Original message

10. Try this. Copy/paste to Excel (col A). Click: Data, Text to Columns.

Edited on Sun Apr-03-05 10:51 PM by TruthIsAll

Op-Scan
Precinct		2004										(%Regist)*(TotalVotes)		(Actual-Exp)/(Exp)				
COUNTY	vendor	REGISTERED VOTERS					ACTUAL
RESULTS					EXPECTED_VOTES		PERCENT
CHANGE		Act/Exp	Act/Exp	Votes/
		%REP	RegRep	%DEM	RegDem	RegTotal	REP	RepPct	DEM	DemPct	Total
Votes	REP	DEM	REP	DEM	REP	DEM	Reg
Alachua	Diebold	27.8%	39,605	50.5%	71,948	142,358	47,615	42.9%	62,348	56.2%	111,022	30,887	56,111	54.2%	11.1%	1.54	0.90	0.78
Brevard	Diebold	44.8%	151,535	36.5%	123,578	338,195	152,838	57.7%	110,153	41.6%	265,075	118,772	96,860	28.7%	13.7%	1.29	0.88	0.78
Calhoun	Diebold	11.9%	993	82.4%	6,879	8,350	3,780	63.4%	2,116	35.5%	5,961	709	4,911	433.2%	-56.9%	5.33	2.32	0.71
Citrus	Diebold	41.5%	37,653	38.9%	35,340	90,780	39,496	56.9%	29,271	42.1%	69,457	28,809	27,039	37.1%	8.3%	1.37	0.92	0.77
Columbia	Diebold	31.3%	10,737	56.5%	19,374	34,282	16,753	67.1%	8,029	32.1%	24,984	7,825	14,119	114.1%	-43.1%	2.14	1.76	0.73
DeSoto	Diebold	25.4%	3,787	59.3%	8,838	14,901	5,510	58.0%	3,910	41.2%	9,493	2,413	5,630	128.4%	-30.6%	2.28	1.44	0.64
Dixie	Diebold	15.0%	1,454	77.5%	7,495	9,676	4,433	68.8%	1,959	30.4%	6,440	968	4,988	358.1%	-60.7%	4.58	2.55	0.67
Duval	Diebold	36.9%	190,111	46.2%	238,264	515,202	218,476	57.7%	157,624	41.7%	378,330	139,605	174,965	56.5%	-9.9%	1.56	1.11	0.73
Flagler	Diebold	40.7%	19,179	38.1%	17,940	47,068	19,624	51.0%	18,563	48.3%	38,455	15,669	14,657	25.2%	26.6%	1.25	0.79	0.82
Gilchrist	Diebold	30.4%	2,750	58.6%	5,295	9,035	4,930	70.4%	2,015	28.8%	7,007	2,133	4,106	131.2%	-50.9%	2.31	2.04	0.78
Glades	Diebold	24.8%	1,479	64.8%	3,867	5,963	1,983	57.7%	1,434	41.8%	3,434	852	2,227	132.8%	-35.6%	2.33	1.55	0.58
Hardee	Diebold	26.7%	2,779	63.8%	6,630	10,399	5,047	69.7%	2,147	29.6%	7,245	1,936	4,619	160.7%	-53.5%	2.61	2.15	0.70
Hernando	Diebold	41.3%	45,266	38.8%	42,554	109,656	40,137	52.9%	35,006	46.2%	75,832	31,303	29,428	28.2%	19.0%	1.28	0.84	0.69
Jefferson	Diebold	20.7%	1,929	72.3%	6,726	9,300	3,298	44.1%	4,134	55.3%	7,477	1,551	5,408	112.7%	-23.6%	2.13	1.31	0.80
Leon	Diebold	26.6%	45,578	57.1%	97,672	171,182	47,902	37.3%	79,591	62.0%	128,316	34,165	73,214	40.2%	8.7%	1.40	0.92	0.75
Levy	Diebold	27.6%	6,241	59.7%	13,503	22,617	10,408	62.5%	6,073	36.5%	16,649	4,594	9,940	126.5%	-38.9%	2.27	1.64	0.74
Madison	Diebold	14.9%	1,695	79.5%	9,042	11,371	4,195	50.5%	4,048	48.7%	8,306	1,238	6,605	238.8%	-38.7%	3.39	1.63	0.73
Manatee	Diebold	44.3%	84,804	33.0%	63,305	191,635	81,237	56.6%	61,193	42.7%	143,469	63,489	47,394	28.0%	29.1%	1.28	0.77	0.75
Monroe	Diebold	38.7%	19,874	36.1%	18,563	51,377	19,457	49.2%	19,646	49.7%	39,517	15,286	14,278	27.3%	37.6%	1.27	0.73	0.77
Okaloosa	Diebold	57.2%	72,885	24.7%	31,526	127,455	69,320	77.6%	19,276	21.6%	89,288	51,059	22,085	35.8%	-12.7%	1.36	1.15	0.70
Okeechobee	Diebold	29.7%	5,537	58.5%	10,891	18,627	6,975	57.2%	5,150	42.3%	12,184	3,622	7,124	92.6%	-27.7%	1.93	1.38	0.65
Osceola	Diebold	32.8%	42,462	40.2%	52,064	129,487	32,812	51.7%	30,295	47.8%	63,440	20,804	25,508	57.7%	18.8%	1.58	0.84	0.49
Polk	Diebold	39.0%	115,211	42.6%	125,870	295,742	123,457	58.6%	85,923	40.8%	210,642	82,059	89,651	50.4%	-4.2%	1.50	1.04	0.71
Putnam	Diebold	28.1%	12,728	57.7%	26,184	45,344	18,303	59.1%	12,407	40.1%	30,960	8,690	17,878	110.6%	-30.6%	2.11	1.44	0.68
Seminole	Diebold	44.6%	107,613	32.3%	77,964	241,230	107,913	58.1%	76,802	41.3%	185,762	82,869	60,037	30.2%	27.9%	1.30	0.78	0.77
St.Johns	Diebold	53.3%	58,436	28.3%	31,051	109,635	58,802	68.6%	26,215	30.6%	85,699	45,678	24,272	28.7%	8.0%	1.29	0.93	0.78
St.Lucie	Diebold	36.6%	50,436	41.4%	57,128	137,951	38,919	47.0%	43,367	52.4%	82,798	30,272	34,288	28.6%	26.5%	1.29	0.79	0.60
Taylor	Diebold	18.9%	2,170	75.6%	8,679	11,481	5,466	63.7%	3,049	35.5%	8,580	1,622	6,486	237.1%	-53.0%	3.37	2.13	0.75
Volusia	Diebold	35.9%	111,372	40.8%	126,405	309,930	100,209	48.1%	106,853	51.3%	208,410	74,891	85,000	33.8%	25.7%	1.34	0.80	0.67
Wakulla	Diebold	24.2%	3,730	66.9%	10,293	15,396	6,777	57.6%	4,896	41.6%	11,763	2,850	7,864	137.8%	-37.7%	2.38	1.61	0.76
Walton	Diebold	50.1%	16,413	36.8%	12,051	32,777	17,526	73.2%	6,205	25.9%	23,939	11,987	8,802	46.2%	-29.5%	1.46	1.42	0.73
Washington	Diebold	25.4%	3,666	67.0%	9,668	14,421	7,367	71.1%	2,911	28.1%	10,363	2,634	6,947	179.6%	-58.1%	2.80	2.39	0.72

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TruthIsAll

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. And this: E-Touch Voting

E-Touch Voting
												(%Regist)*(TotalVotes)		(Actual-Exp)/(Exp)				
COUNTY	vendor	REGISTERED VOTERS					ACTUAL
RESULTS					EXPECTED_VOTES		PERCENT
CHANGE		Actual/Exo	Actual/Exo	
		%REP	Rep	%DEM	Dem	TotalReg	REP	PctRep	DEM	PctDem	TotalVote	REP	DEM	REP	DEM	REP	DEM	Votes/Reg
Broward	ES&S	26.8%	283,736	50.5%	533,976	1,058,069	236,794	34.5%	441,733	64.3%	686,715	184,152	346,565	28.6%	27.5%	1.29	0.78	64.90%
Charlotte	ES&S	44.9%	51,110	31.9%	36,306	113,808	44,402	55.7%	34,227	42.9%	79,730	35,806	25,435	24.0%	34.6%	1.24	0.74	70.06%
Collier	ES&S	53.1%	89,559	24.4%	41,082	168,673	82,493	65.0%	43,277	34.1%	126,916	67,388	30,912	22.4%	40.0%	1.22	0.71	75.24%
Hillsborough	Sequoia
	35.1%	217,766	41.7%	258,882	621,201	241,630	53.0%	210,892	46.3%	455,970	159,843	190,023	51.2%	11.0%	1.51	0.90	73.40%
Indian River	Sequoia
	51.3%	41,866	30.0%	24,515	81,643	36,744	60.2%	23,850	39.0%	61,087	31,325	18,343	17.3%	30.0%	1.17	0.77	74.82%
Lake	ES&S	47.4%	76,387	34.3%	55,258	161,269	73,971	60.0%	47,963	38.9%	123,269	58,388	42,237	26.7%	13.6%	1.27	0.88	76.44%
Lee	ES&S	47.5%	144,948	29.7%	90,716	304,937	114,153	59.0%	76,874	39.8%	193,326	91,895	57,513	24.2%	33.7%	1.24	0.75	63.40%
Martin	ES&S	52.5%	51,869	27.5%	27,203	98,857	41,303	57.1%	30,149	41.7%	72,334	37,953	19,905	8.8%	51.5%	1.09	0.66	73.17%
Miami-Dade	ES&S	34.8%	368,334	42.8%	453,631	1,058,801	326,362	45.8%	383,032	53.7%	713,022	248,045	305,486	31.6%	25.4%	1.32	0.80	67.34%
Nassau	ES&S	49.1%	20,300	36.8%	15,218	41,353	23,726	72.7%	8,543	26.2%	32,656	16,031	12,017	48.0%	-28.9%	1.48	1.41	78.97%
Palm Beach	Sequoia
	32.0%	233,495	45.1%	329,232	729,575	174,233	38.5%	275,030	60.8%	452,061	144,679	204,000	20.4%	34.8%	1.20	0.74	61.96%
Pasco	ES&S	40.1%	106,649	37.3%	99,272	265,974	103,195	54.1%	84,729	44.4%	190,861	76,531	71,237	34.8%	18.9%	1.35	0.84	71.76%
Pinellas	Sequoia
	39.2%	231,652	37.8%	223,544	590,989	222,630	49.6%	222,103	49.5%	448,875	175,947	169,789	26.5%	30.8%	1.27	0.76	75.95%
Sarasota	ES&S	47.9%	115,317	31.2%	74,986	240,592	104,446	53.5%	88,225	45.2%	195,183	93,552	60,833	11.6%	45.0%	1.12	0.69	81.13%
Sumter	ES&S	43.5%	17,631	40.8%	16,553	40,523	19,794	62.2%	11,583	36.4%	31,835	13,851	13,004	42.9%	-10.9%	1.43	1.12	78.56%
																		
TOTAL	EVOTE	36.77%	2,050,619	40.89%	2,280,374	5,576,264	1,845,876	47.77%	1,982,210	51.30%	3,863,840	1,435,385	1,567,297	28.60%	26.47%	1.29	0.79	69.29%
ESS	OPScan	39.65%	571,765	41.90%	604,288	1,442,203	629,248	59.95%	413,066	39.36%	1,049,555	416,001	439,984	51.26%	-6.12%	1.51	1.07	72.77%
Diebold	OPScan	38.69%	1,270,108	41.93%	1,376,587	3,282,823	1,320,965	55.73%	1,032,609	43.56%	2,370,297	921,241	992,441	43.39%	4.05%	1.43	0.96	72.20%

Grand
Total		37.79%	3,892,492	41.37%	4,261,249	10,301,290	3,796,089	52.12%	3,427,885	47.06%	7,283,692	2,772,627	2,999,722	36.91%	14.27%	1.37	0.88	70.71%
																		
VOTING
MACHINE		TotalReg	%DEM	%REP	TotalVote	%DEM	%REP	Vote/Reg	DEMAct/Exp	REPAct/Exp								
Touchscreen		5,576,264	40.89%	36.77%	3,863,840	51.30%	47.77%	69.29%	79.07%	128.60%								
ESSOptiscan		1,442,203	41.90%	39.65%	1,049,555	39.36%	59.95%	72.77%	106.52%	151.26%								
DieboldOptiscan		3,282,823	41.93%	38.69%	2,370,297	43.56%	55.73%	72.20%	96.11%	143.39%								
																		
Total		10,301,290	41.37%	37.79%	7,283,692	47.06%	52.12%	70.71%	87.51%	136.91%

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LatePeriduct

(660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. Use this to cross compare

If you look at the deviation results and use this to compare, you can determine exactly what you're talking about.

http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla2.html

http://www.votersunite.org also has a whole slew of documented cases and summaries

You can then see from there where the OPscans were involved down to the ballot level.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

berniew1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #12

15. think you meant a different link to compare to:

http://www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html
http://www.flcv.com/fla04EA.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LatePeriduct

(660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #15

17. Thanks, I was looking for those.anything more specific then that works nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

berniew1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-03-05 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #10

16. The problem is with the assumptions regarding the "expected" votes

the North Florida small Dixiecrat counties don't vote by party for President; only for local things

or thats what historic vote data shows

compare using party to set assumption of % vote versus my assumption

which is "if Dems have more new registrations between 2000 and 2004, they should have at least as much % vote in 2004 as 2000.

the Dixiecrat counties didn't meet my requirement

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mgr

(616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-06-05 10:20 AM
Response to Original message

19. There was a thread in early December on this

What I recall were the following issues:

1.) The reporters from the Miami Herald visited three counties with Op-Scan methods to test Dopp's analysis, this was done just before Thanksgiving. Neither of the two were the Herald's political reporters.

2.) The reviewed precincts likely selected by the local BOE, they only complete review of their samples in two of the three counties.

3.) Review of the ballots indicated a spoilage of 0.3 or 1% within the precincts. There was a great deal of confusion on this.

4.) The reporters were invited to Thanksgiving Dinner by one of the BOE heads.

There is no reason to expect that their limited sample shows anything. The actions taken appear to have been prompted by the BOEs or some relationship between the reporters and the BOEs. The counties surveyed were not ones that I would have selected to test Dopp's analysis, as all were small in population, and electorally insignificant. If you were expecting vote theft, it would be in the larger counties, such as the one where Jacksonville is. These were too small to have anyplace to hide it.

Mike

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 01:15 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform

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