Miami Herald article shows that Kerry may have won Florida!

In an article published yesterday, reporters from the Miami Herald provided data from hand counts that they conducted in several northern "dixiecrat" counties in Florida. They concluded that nothing was awry, and in fact, went so far as to title the article "No flaw in Bush's state win."

Here's a link to a reprint of the story that doesn't require registration:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002102809_florida28.html

Here are the tallies for Union County:

Bush original: 3396
Bush hand count: 3393 (-3)
Kerry original: 1251
Kerry hand count: 1272 (+21)
Net change: Kerry +24

Here are the tallies for Lafayette County:

Bush original: 2460
Bush hand count: 2452 (-8)
Kerry original: 845
Kerry hand count: 848 (+3)
Net change: Kerry +11

It's a bit more complicated for the third county they looked at, Suwanee County, because they only report the totals for a hand count of "almost 60%" of the ballots.

Bush original: 11153
Kerry original: 4522
Bush hand count: 6140
Kerry hand count: 2984

In the original count, 71.2% of the votes cast for Bush or Kerry (n=15675) went to Bush. In the hand count, this drops to 67.3%. That is a significant drop. Let's translate that into numbers. If you take the percentages from the hand count and extrapolate, here's what you get:

Bush = 15675 x .673 = 10549 (loss of 604)
Kerry = 15675 x .327 = 5126 (gain of 604)
Net change: Kerry +1208

A switch of 1208 votes in a county with less than 16K votes cast is obviously huge. Now maybe there's a very large percentage of Bush votes in that remaining 40% that they didn't count, but we can't know that because they didn't count them. Which begs the question...why did they stop counting in Suwannee County when their tabulation of 60% of the ballots deviated so much from the original total? And without actually counting those remaining ballots, how can they possibly report that nothing is amiss when the data they have so far suggests a possible problem?

They conclude that there's "no flaw in Bush's state win." Sorry, but what I see is a possible gain of 1243 votes for Kerry from three small counties in which only 23627 ballots were cast. That represents about 0.3% of the ballots cast for Bush and Kerry statewide. If Kerry gained votes at the same rate statewide, he picks up nearly 400,000 votes and wins Florida.

Thanks Miami Herald, you just revealed to us in your hand counts that there's a possibility that Kerry won Florida.

Send it to Keith! Keith! Keith!

Keith Olbermann is the smartest journalist ever and with his 50 million viewers a day he will expose this fraud.

where do you get 50,000,000 viewers?

The "audit" in 3 small rural counties is a red herring being circulated to quell concern over possible fraud in Florida. The 3 small counties in question showed no irregularities in pattern compared to 2000 voting and recent voter registration data. They were volunteered to be counted because it was known that they had no problems. Otherwise they wouldn't have been volunteered to have the counts.
But all of the major studies on unusual voting patterns in Florida
Univ. of Calif.(Berkeley) study, Princeton Univ. study and www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html
found that the big unusual patterns in Florida were in the big touchscreen counties. This appears to be an attempt to take attention away from the touchscreen counties where anomalous patterns of votes was found by focusing instead on small optical scan counties. But it says nothing about the bigger issue, touchscreens in large counties. There were some larger optical scan counties that showed some unexpected voting patterns, but not these and not as much as the touchscreen counties.

... but nearly all the votes in the Kerry swing are attributable to the extrapolation of the unfinished hand-count's in-process %'s, and so have little meaning.

Didn't Madsen say that most of the vote stealing went on in large counties in Florida?

Yes I do believe that was fraud in FL and OH. I can't wait for W to rewsign in shame

I just checked our local paper out and it had the same article with the same finals in it so this isn't a typo you caught!! Good job!!

It wouldn't take long to overturn that state at a rate like that.

You mean in 2000, or Nov. 3, 2004, or the Miami Herald?

answers: The Supreme Court, MSM, and the editor...

I like your questions and your answers.

If the truth comes out, Bush will leave the WH in disgrace.

Not if state law doesn't support it. So what do you base your comment on?

I calculated the numbers assuming all votes in florida showed the same change.

votes_here/total_votes
15,675/7,500,000 = 0.209% of the total vote

change_here/percent_changed
1,200/0.209% = over 570,000 votes to KERRY!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that had significantly more voters.

And it's not just switching votes from Kerry to Bush... it's switching from Kerry to Bush and third party candidates.

in Suwanee County?
Hmm...

Once more you delight me with your brilliance. ;) Can't say that I'm very disappointed since I stopped lurking. You guys are great!!

:bounce:

:kick:
question, if you assume that the voting percentages stay the same as in the 60% sample, do you not even get a further repositioning of results? I might be wrong cuz its way past bedtime but I did
6140/.6 = 10233 bush votes - 11153 = 920 excess bush votes
2984/.6 = 4973 kerry votes - 4522 original votes = 451 votes kerry gain

add it up and you get 1371 for this little teenie district...ouch thats bad

...a new shiny :tinfoilhat: for someone who is more awake than I who wants to explain it better

He has been silent and hasn't been answering e-mails?

It gives you similar numbers. I went a different route since the article says they counted "almost 60%" of the ballots and we therefore don't have the exact number. In addition some of that counted sample would've gone to the third-party candidates, and they don't give those numbers either.

That's why I chose to extrapolate from the ratio of Bush to Kerry votes in the counted sample.

Either way you work the math, it points to a potentially large change in the vote count in Suwannee County. Can't help but think that the counters knew this, and that's why they stopped counting.

They got 60 % counted, and stopped? Why? Certainly not because they were getting identical results to the official count, since obviously Kerry/Bush ratio is not the same as in official count.

For example if they knew that 10,000 votes were cast, which ever candidate gets 5001 confirmed votes wins. If the other guy only has 1000 votes that means we’ve looked at 60% and there’s no reason to count anymore.

I’m not sure if that’s the case in this situation, it’s just one explanation why they may have stopped counting.

That data is certainly interesting. But, maybe some of the 40% of the Suwanee precincts that they didn't count were in strong Bush areas. That could easily account for the 4% difference in the partial count.

The best thing to do would be to count all of the ballots - not just 60% - and see if that result holds up. That's what we really want, after all: all of the ballots to be counted. Why does the Miami Herald get to actually count ballots in some cherry-picked counties, while good patriots like Bev Harris can't even get election officials to do their legal duty and disclose public records?

Kerry still picked votes and Bush lost votes. The third county, they stopped counting. Why? Was Kerry picking even more votes there so they stopped?

Like you said, maybe a very high percentage of the remaining ballots would've gone to Bush, bringing the tally in line with the official results. Because they didn't count all of the votes, there's no way we can know for sure what those votes look like.

But my main point is this: Based on the data they have given us, you certainly can't conclude, as they did, that there are "no flaws in Bush's win in the state." If anything, the data they've uncovered so far does suggest a problem or flaw, and compels further counting.

What they've done here is find a several percentage point swing to Kerry, then turn around and say there's no change. That conclusion doesn't follow from the data.

(And of course their "no flaw" statement is also ridiculous given that they ignored the urban counties that statisticians pointed to as having the biggest anomalies.)

Or better yet (or and), CALLED the reporters or even better the editors? And an LTE is certainly in order as well.

Great work.

If we drill down to the precinct level data we should be able to resolve this question, or at least clarify it, ourselves. The data will either show that this explanation is a theoretical possibility, or it will show that the precincts are more or less uniform in their voting patterns, which will be almost as good as counting the entire county. I don't have time to do this at the moment as I am preparing a class....but I toss the idea out for some enterprising DUer. Surprise me with the results; I'll check back in a few hours.

I thought that was to alert for freepers and trolls!

Or NOT!

Their conclusion is simply wrong given the data they have at the moment.

In both counties where full counts were done, Bush lost votes AND Kerry gained votes.

I still have yet to hear how machines can possibly come up with more votes than a hand count, but that's what happened in both cases for Bush.

I still can't understand how they were even allowed to count, considering Gore couldn't get recounts in 2000.
But solid proof is not something they were going for.

because the election has been certified, the ballots have already been removed from their locked bags and are stored by the SOE in each county.

These ballots are now available for anyone with the time and money to view them. You are not allowed to touch the ballots, an election worker has to hold them for you, but anyone can pick a county and do what the Miami Herald just did.


Here's a link to the thread regarding recounting FL votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x90331

A little hypothetical situation to consider.

Suppose that tomorrow, Katherine Blackwell said, "Hey everybody! After talking with my advisors, I've had a change of heart. We're going to start a recount in Ohio tomorrow!"

Now, being a conniving Repuke, he says "We're going to start in Cuyahoga County, in this special list of precincts that I just made up." His list contains mostly rich white neighborhoods that are very Republican. Now, you know that most precincts, of course, in the county at large are strongly Democratic, but he selects, say, the 20% that are most supportive of you-know-who.

Now, after all these Republican precincts were counted, suppose the results looked like this:

Cuyahoga County (partial recount results)
20% of all precincts counted
Bush - 65%
Kerry - 35%

Now Katherine Blackwell turns around and says, "Well, it looks like 65% of the voters support W. Obviously, the remaining 80% of the precincts must look like that too. So, no need to finish the recount. It's all over. Bush obviously won 65% of the votes in all of Cuyahoga County!"

Would you buy that? Of course you wouldn't. You'd see right through it. Right?

So, without knowing which precincts were counted in Suwanee County, Florida, does it make sense to assume that all of the uncounted precincts in the county voted the same way as the counted ones? Does the counted 60% necessarily reflect how the other 40% will vote?

What, their poor little hands got tired? Their poor little eyes couldn't see no more? If they were supposed to show that Bush won fair and squire, couldn't they at least finish counting, considering their Kerry/Bush ratio was not the same as in the official results? For all I know, Kerry would have done even better if they had finished.
:eyes:

I couldn't say why they stopped counting. Some possible reasons:

1. Lack of time. They were writing this article on a deadline and had to get it into print before the Suwanee counting finished.

2. Lack of funds. I'm sure they had to pony up some money to get these counts going.

3. Lack of volunteers. Ballots don't count themselves, you know (well, given the unreliability of the current Diebold opscanners, maybe they do...)

Too many votes for Kerry that they couldn't explain away.
:spank:

You're right: it doesn't support their (erroneous) conclusion that there was no fraud. Neither does it support the notion that there was fraud. It doesn't support anything. It doesn't even rate as an "anomaly".

And why did they write an article saying there was no FRAUD?

:shrug: :eyes:

Why they stopped counting: ask them. I'm sure they'll tell you (unless they do have some guilty secret. :tinfoilhat:) I gave some reasonable possibilities in my last post.

Why they wrote an article saying there was no fraud: Simple. Because they're dummies. :)

It doesn't prove fraud and it doesn't even prove there's an anomaly. A full count would be needed for that.

What it does show is that the Miami Herald report is complete garbage, though. Their conclusion that there is "no flaw in the state" is absolutely ridiculous. They didn't test the whole state, and that part of the state they did test currently isn't in line with the certified results.

The media has been ripping on us for making unsubstantiated claims, and here we have a set of reporters not only making unsubstantiated claims, but claims that are inconsistent with their very own data!

And (I posted this already) didn't Madsen say that most of the vote stealing took place in large pop counties?

They concluded that nothing was wrong in Suwannee County (or in the whole state) even though the data they had in hand was not in line with the official counts. Their conclusion simply does not follow from their data.

How can one possibly count 60% of the vote, see a swing of several percentage points, then conclude "nothing's wrong, let's stop counting?"

As I said in previous posts, what I've presented here does not in any way prove that a full hand count in Suwannee County would show big differences from the official tally. What it does is show that the reporters were quite premature in their conclusions, and that we're getting very biased reporting from that newspaper.

It also compels further counting. How can you stop counting when the counts you have before you are not in line with the official tallies?

You can't compare 60% of the Suwanee precincts to all of the Suwanne precincts, for exactly the same reason that Katherine Blackwell couldn't compare 20% of Cuyahoga to all of Cuyahoga in my example. You're ignoring potentially important information by doing that.

If I counted the Presidential votes in Washington state, but left out, say, King County, the most liberal area by far, the percentages I'd get would be way off the reported totals, but I wouldn't say that was suspicious.

Here's the question I'll ask. Do the tallies for the counted Suwanne precincts agree (more or less) with the officially reported totals for those same precincts only? What are the numbers? If there's a 4% difference between those figures, then yes, I'll agree, this is big. Otherwise, no, it doesn't mean anything.

Even if we did a full hand count right now and showed there's no problem, it's still shoddy reporting for the Miami Herald to definatively conclude that there's "no flaw." How can they possibly say that?

I've said several times in this thread that this does not point to fraud and does not even prove there's an anomaly. My point is simply that based on the data the reporters have, they have no basis for arriving at the conclusion that there is "no flaw in Bush's win in the state." Yet they choose that exact wording for the very *title* of their article.

Just counting a couple of northern counties and saying "no big difference" certainly doesn't prove anything about the existence of statewide fraud; the article is poorly titled. If they did an extensive audit in southern Florida, though, I suspect they'd be singing a different song.

Did you think they were investigating? Why? Because they said they were?

They were from the MIAMI Friggin HERALD??
Owned by which corporation?

It is like the letters you see in People magazine "How can you put Brittany Spears on the cover when people are starving!"
Answer...Because it is PEOPLE magazine!!

These were real hard hitting investigative journalists (sarcasm...)
Real fair and balanced... Just look at these heart felt quotes:

"People here traditionally register as Democrats to vote in local primaries, but they're very conservative," Union County Judge Dave Reimer said.

Election Supervisor Babs Montpetit was more direct. "People here are mostly fundamentalist Christians who work in the prisons," she said. "Do you think they're going to vote for the liberal senator from Massachusetts?"

Supervisor Glenda Williams greeted reporters at the election office in Live Oak: "Most people in this county are against abortion and gay marriage. So, they voted for Bush."

(HMMM I guess they couldn't find any quotes from people who think things smell fishy? I mean that is what the story is about! Isn't it? Getting to the TRUTH?? )

Or this unbiased observation:

Along the way were neighborhoods called "The Christian Village" and a warehouse called "The Christian Outlet." One billboard said: "There is life before birth."

(HMMM again, they hadn't made up their minds which way to spin this story, had they?)

Here is an excerpt that shows their intent to get to the bottom of this mess:

Reporters told Lafayette County Election Supervisor Lana Morgan the newspaper had come back to end the speculation.

(It is always good to "end the speculation")

"Good," she said. "You don't know how frustrating it is to convince people who are set on believing something — even if it's not true."

(WOOPS, they forgot to interview any of those unconvincible OTHER people!!)

Nice ending:

Morgan invited the reporters for an early Thanksgiving dinner in her office, but they had to return home, driving to the Jacksonville airport past Snoball stands, chicken farms and anti-abortion billboards.

FACTSthey checked 17,000 ballots
RESULTS: Less votes for Bush more votes for Kerry
"Conclusion: no conspiracy"

Love that down home feel!


PS my rage is spilling out at no one here, just this terrible situation that we are all in...
My son is 17, and I will break his legs before I let them take him!

Comparing precinct by precinct is obviously better than what we have but how do we find out which specific precincts the MH recounted? And even if we get that are the per precinct results for Suwannee county available somewhere?

One other note the article claims that they counted 60% of the vote not 60% of the precincts. Although the article is probably incomplete (insofar as it really is 60% of precincts as well) if the MH is take to mean a 60% sample from all precincts than the extrapolation of results is probably good.

in the count. So, it doesn't matter if the ballots that were uncounted by the Miami Herald were for Bush or Kerry. We are looking to see if the Suwannee County counts were correct. The M-H handcount found a statistically significant difference that showed Kerry was short-counted in the official results. It's the difference that matters here, not the counts, since we all know the official totals.

Since Kerry was shorted in the 60% of the ballots the M-H looked at, it is completely valid to assume that Kerry would continue to be shorted at the same rate in the remaining 40% that the scumbag M-H reporters didn't count. In fact, that would be the maximum liklihood estimate for that 40%.

Pointsoflight has a great find and analysis. Let's not poison his or her correct conclusions.

the vioce of concern - so naturally they would pull a 'Blackwell' as you described.

Going to the Dixiecrat states - they thought they would get what they needed but had to stop short, just as you suggested would happen in Ohio.

I'm not saying I know what the results will be, but you've made the point for a full recount.

We need to write to every paper that carried this nonsense.

Here's what I wrote to the Herald. I hope you join me.

To: mlaughlin@herald.com nationalnews@herald.com investigations@herald.com HeraldEd@herald.com slevinson@knightridder.com
Subject: Herald's Fuzzy Math

Do you people own a calculator?

You falsely claim your count of Suwanee County ballots "nearly matched the county's official tally."

This is simply false.

Your count discovered that only 67.3% of ballots were for Bush and that 32.7% were for Kerry. This differs from the "offishyl" result by several percentage points.

Extrapolate your results to the entire county and you would have "found" (had you looked) a swing from Bush to Kerry of nearly 8% or
approximately 1200 votes.

And that's after examining only 00.12% of the votes in the state.

Hello!?! Is anybody home!?!

I’ve been thinking of possible scenarios where the scanners/tabulators could count more votes for one candidate than a hand count would, especially given the reduction in invalid ballots. I can’t come up with any legitimate scenario in which that would be the case… maybe someone else can think of a way this could happen without tampering with or biasing the machines.

Give these data to Professor Freeman. He will be very interested. A rough analysis shows that the original count and the control count for Suwannee County are incompatible.

Let's take the original count. 15675 votes, with 11153 votes =71.2% for Bush.

If we take a random sample (and this is what you do when you make a control count and stop when you've counted 58% of the votes), we can determine the mean and standard deviation for Bush's votes.

The mean is: (9124= total votes of the control count)

m = 9124*0,712 = 6496 votes. (This is what was to be expected in the control count).

The standard deviation is

sigma = square root (9124*0,712*0,218) = 37.6.

There is a 99% probability that a random sample lies between m-3*sigma and m+3*sigma. This is the so-called confidence interval. In our case this means that there is a 99% probability that Bush's votes in a control count with 9124 counted votes lies between 6383 and 6599.

Bush's actual vote count was 6140, however. This is far off. This is a deviation of (6496-6140)/37.6 = 9.46*sigma.

A standard deviation of 9.46*sigma means that the result is next to impossible and that you have to look for other explanations than random influence.

The most obvious explanation is that the original count was wrong. Is it therefore highly recommend to do another control count, but this time with 100% votes countes, not 58%.

Sorry, I made a little mistake, but this doesnt' change anything.

The standard deviation is

sigma = square root (9124*0,712*0,288) = 43.3.

There is a 99% probability that a random sample lies between m-3*sigma and m+3*sigma. This is the so-called confidence interval. In our case this means that there is a 99% probability that Bush's votes in a control count with 9124 counted votes lies between 6366 and 6626.

Bush's actual vote count was 6140, however. This is far off. This is a deviation of (6496-6140)/43.3 = 8.22*sigma.

A standard deviation of 8.22*sigma still means that the result is next to impossible.

There is no basis for assuming that the ballots counted were a 60% random sample of the whole.

A 60% random sample would require that they sample from all of the ballots in the county - for example, by taking a representative 60% sample from each and every precinct.

They certainly didn't do this. They just counted 60% of the precincts.

That is not the same as taking a 60% random sample, since a candidate's support by precinct is generally not a randomly distributed variable: for example, there are especially lopsided precincts which break 80-90%+ for one candidate or another. Leave a couple of these out, and whoops! Your sample totals are off by several percentage points from the mean of the whole.

This partial count in Suwannee is not indicative of anything besides being, well, a partial count. Which is not to say that there aren't lots and lots of valid indicators of election fraud out there: just that this isn't one of them.

Gallop can call less than 1000 people in this entire nation and determine that Bush will win by a two digit percentile, and you, on the other hand, are asking for more than a 60% sample of a county before you accept what is no more than a projection which is valid enough to justify a full recount.

They said it "almost matched". Polls are random, this was specific precints.

Depending on which precints you counted in Cuyahoga county Ohio, you could arrive at the equally mistaken conclusions that Kerry took 80% of the vote, or that Bush did.

Does Suwanee County have any major liberal strongholds?? I think not. This is a rather homogenous county.....afterall, I am sure this is why they picked it.

(to the tune of Randi Rhodes's theme music)

Count the ballots, we're counting on you!
Count the ballots, a thing we just 'got to do!
Count the ballots, freedom is counting on you!

(oh I am getting sick!)

Even if the reporters reported the totals of some precincts - which is doubtable, see my post #72 - if the county has a homogenous structure, the randomness is still good. I think Suwannee County is such a county.

A standard deviation of 8.22*sigma can't be explained by a slightly skewed sample.

"lop-sided" precincts or how many votes Bush or Kerry would get in the 40% of precincts that weren't reviewed by the M-H.

If the election officials had a given error rate in counting the 60% which were reviewed by the M-H, then it is perfectly logical and statistically valid to assume that their error rate would persist in remaining 40%.

In fact, there is probably is good reason to believe that they may have siphoned off Kerry votes and awarded them to Bush. And the slimeball M-H reporters realized that and scooted out of town.

Below is the Florida vote count broken down by county :


http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm

Check out the numbers at the above website for
Jefferson, Liberty, and Calhoun county .

All 3 have have a very high percentage of Registered Democrats,
but all 3 reported the great majority of votes for Bush.

Why didn't the Herald pick one of these counties, since
their reported results are very far off from what
you would expect of a Democratic county ?

We don't need them to do it for us.

Any citizen has the right to come to Florida and ask to look at the ballots. The SOE decide what the fee is and they will hold up the ballots for you to look at.

Call the local DEM party in these counties and ask them to organize recounts so we can find out what really happened.

The following link has links to every SOE in the State of FL.

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/county/index.shtml

maybe you should come down here and get to know some of these "Democrats".

Should we media blast this? What do folks think? I think you just caught the media with its pants down.

I agree with you, BlueDog2u. And by the way, this is my very first post. But I've been reading yours for a while.

:yourock:

We carry out the test indicated in my more recent post. Find out what the precint data are. That will help us to answer the question of whether these numbers could possibly result from variation in the precincts within the county. If we can safely rule out this explanation, then we have something explosively significant. If not, it still could be significant but we really don't know for sure.

for responding to a newbie. Just finding my feet around here.

:hi:

And by the way,

Welcome to DU!:toast:

reversed exactly?! Very interesting...

I calculated the net gain for Kerry equalled about 1/4% overall in those three counties. I was PISSED because the article made it seem that there was NO change--until someone posted the results. I bet they did a 0.3% calculation pretty much across the board. Nationally, how many votes do you suppose would that be? Enough to equal Bush's "mandate"?

says that the BIG mandate for Bush was exactly the high turnout numbers voting for Kerry, or ABB. BushCo evil-doers just flipped 'em, electronically or otherwise, and they are still laughing at all of us.

But not forever, and not for long...

NT

The original article says:

"The Herald counted almost 60 percent of the votes in Suwannee County, where nearly 64 percent of the voters are registered Democrats."

"The newspaper's total from those precincts: 6,140 votes for Bush and 2,984 for Kerry, which nearly matched the county's official tally."

The key is the phrase "from those precincts." What the reporters apparently found is a match, precinct by precinct to the official totals (since the individual totals by precinct were available to them).

This wasn't a "random sampling" of the ballots but a complete total from a number of the precincts. Your analysis is flawed -- expecting a linear extrapolation from precinct to precinct is no more valid than expecting such a relationship to hold from county to county (or state to state, for that matter).

My point isn't to burst your balloon but rather to try and keep people focused on the real issues. These academic exercises using numbers posted online aren't convincing anyone in the MSM or in any position to make an impact.

n/t

As much as I appreciate a healthy dose of skepticism, I think you're both missing the major points.

1. Random or not, the Herald did not count all the precincts. Either way, we are left with a question about final results, and it is simply premature and wrong of them to conclude that no funny business took place.

2. The other counties, which were counted completely, showed vote gains for Kerry. Instead of verifying the official election results, this fact should compel the reporters to ask if this trend was consistent across the state.

There is nothing wrong with sampling precincts. In fact, this is exactly what Nader is doing in NH. What is important is proving (or disproving) fraud involving the electronic voting systems. All you need to do that is to verify, by hand, the numbers tabulated by the machines in a closed system.

That means that taking samples of precincts throughout the state is a very good way to prove the point, one way or the other.

However, it still doesn't answer how they can make the claim that there was no funny business when all of their particular handcounting reduced Bush's votes, and only Bush's votes.

20 votes here, 20 votes there-it all adds up.

However, errors of this type have always (and will always) exists. They are caused by human error (usually) although can also be mechanical malfunctions.

If you assume no "fraud" then the errors will statistically cancel out (there would be errors in favor of both candidates). If fraud exists then the assumptions are invalid.

Proving fraud will take more than a few votes differing in each precinct unless EVERY case shows an advantage to a specific candidate.

These numbers don't prove anything--they just raise suspicion. And suspicion should lead us to investigate more fully.

The problem is that the reporters' handcounting *all* showed a shift in Kerry's favor. Thus, we are compelled to ask the question whether these are indeed random errors.

Fraud may not be proven at this point, but it casts uncertainty about legitimacy. And that's good enough for me to have a full audit and recount.

Here are the tallies for Union County:

Bush original: 3396
Bush hand count: 3393 (-3)
Kerry original: 1251
Kerry hand count: 1272 (+21)
Net change: Kerry +24

Here are the tallies for Lafayette County:

Bush original: 2460
Bush hand count: 2452 (-8)
Kerry original: 845
Kerry hand count: 848 (+3)
Net change: Kerry +11

I think you misread the previous post. The numbers show that Bush got more counts by the machines.

they've been outlawed.

These counties are optical scan.

The key is the phrase "from those precincts." What the reporters apparently found is a match, precinct by precinct to the official totals (since the individual totals by precinct were available to them).

See post #72 and sho mew which precincts were chosen by the Miami Herald to count. I'm looking forward to your answer.

Did you consider the (very likely) possibility that the absentee ballots were divided by precinct for the Miami Herald count? The web page you link to does not do such a division, so knowing for sure is again impossible.

That was my point from the start. Like many posters since 11/2, you are trying to draw inferences from online numbers w/o knowing the actual details. Fun, perhaps, but a dead-end.

If you remain curious about the precincts counted, why don't you contact the actual reporters and ask them?

Do you really think that, after doing their own count, the BoE members sit together and distribute the batch of absentee ballots over the precincts, just for the Miami heroes? What for? This makes no sense.

You can contact the BOE and the Miami Herald.

Excellent response.

I am continually amazed by how determined people can "prove" anything with numbers, as long as you are selective over which ones they use and what they say they represent!

Please Please do not be sending this type of information to Olbermann. I watched him last night and he appears to be getting burned out with the chase. We need something more SOLID than just playing with selective numbers, extrapolating them, and presenting this as a case!

I think I'll send him the stuff :-)

If you read his blogs from yesterday you'll know why he was like that on tv last night: grief over the plane crash that killed his boss's son.

I never tried to prove anything. I simply showed that it was the Miami Herald that didn't prove anything, as they were claiming.

Is if the deliberately chose not to count the 10 or so precincts that went most heavily for Bush, and its these heavy Bush precincts that remain uncounted. Anything other than that, and the hand count can not be reconciled with the official count.

That alone would be cause for concern. Why would you cherry pick in such a way that you deliberately leave out those precincts where Bush won by the biggest margin?

Bush/Gore -- supposedly, anyway.

Suwannee 8,006 4,075

Also, a scenario: How did Florida swing to Bush in 2000? Doesn't it make incredible sense to pad those Panhandle votes? The Dixiecrat theory provides an immediate case of plausible deniability.

but liked what they saw! (no "compassionate conservative")

prior to you guys doing this number crunching, I sent this email to the Herald (the Orlando Sentinel also ran the story and I wrote them as well).

I am writing regarding your recent articles dealing with the three county partial hand recount of ballots your reporters witnessed.

I have been following the problems with the our recent election in hopes of finding a way to eliminate all concerns and suspicions in this and future elections. I appreciate your newspaper being present at these recounts and publishing the results.

Anything that increases the transparency of our elections will improve the trust of the voters in that system.

I do have a few questions regarding your reports, though. In several studies, the UC Berkeley study for example, the three counties you reported on showed no signs of irregularities or problems. Therefore, a hand recount that is virtually identical with the reported results in these counties does not really address the issues raised by these studies.

A second issue is that in two of the counties the President lost votes in the hand recount. I do not understand how this is possible. A machine can (incorrectly) not count a vote for a variety of reason and a hand recount would add votes to the total, most likely adding votes for all candidates. However, if a hand recount decreases the votes cast for a candidate, that would mean that the machine counted a vote that didn't exist. I'm not sure I understand how this is possible and your article did not talk about this issue. Did the machine total include votes for which there was no corresponding ballot? Did the machine tally a vote when the ballot showed no selection? Either of these raises serious concerns about the machines' reliability. I have no concern that machines might miss votes, this can happen and hand recounts can find these votes and add them to the totals. I am concerned when the machine counts votes that don't exist.

The third issue is that, if our goal is to relieve the anxiety of those who feel that there is bias in the system, to show that regardless of what errors, glitches or malfunctions we may experience, it is systemic and affects all candidates, your report fails. Note that in each case of a hand recount, the reported results versus the hand-counted results favor John Kerry.

As I have been reading the reports of those who are concerned that there is a systemic bias in the errors, glitches and malfunctions toward the President in this election, I am afraid these results, though small, only feed that concern. It appears that there may actually be enough data to support the notion that there is a systemic bias and the results you reported do not challenge that, they support it.

My final point is that these partial hand-recounts in three counties not only do not address the serious issues raised regarding irregularities, as these counties were never in question, and not only do not address the possible serious issue of systemic bias, as the results seem to confirm systemic bias for every variance with hand-counting was in Kerry's favor, and not only do not address the possible serious issue of programmatic bias, as the machines counted votes for Bush that did not exist, but that these results are woefully inadequate to use as proof that "No flaw found in Bush's state win".

Again, I appreciate all efforts to make the 2004 election, and all future elections, transparent. I wish that you would continue this task by looking a little deeper into the issues raised and the problems reported.

yet the impossible has occurred: Bush lost three votes in one county and eight votes in another.

To look at the tiny percentage of change in total vote count in these two counties is beside the point. The machines cannot manufacture votes, or be able to count more votes for a particular candidate than exist upon substantiation by audit.

To your point, the machines have just been proven unreliable.

So, how does the machine count more votes for a candidate than exist? Any of the possible answers are unacceptable (and suspicious).

findings to date. You are a genuine American hero.
I will write a letter to the Miami Herald later tonight (that's if I don't get arrested at the protest in Ottawa, Canada today)

Look at this here:

http://www.suwanneevotes.com/new_page_3.htm

You see that the total votes vor Bush and Kerry (11145 vs. 4513) match the official votes quite good (11153 vs. 4522).

The columns show the results for each of the 16 precincts. The column left of the totals lists the absentee+early votes.

So how did the Miami heroes get their data? Did they simply add the totals of some of the precincts, as some are suggesting?

This doesn't add up.

Look at the Kerry votes: He got 1512 absentee votes out of his total 4513 votes. This leaves 3001 "real-time" votes. In the incomplete Miami Herald count Kerry got already 2984 votes. This almost equals the real-time votes.

So either

- the Miami Herald count included ALL of the 16 precincts and neglected the absentee votes. But this doesn't add up with the Bush votes - he gets 7524 in the precincts, but got only 6140 in the Miami Herald count. Not possible.

or

- the Miami Herald included the absentee votes and some of the precincts. I picked the most pro-Kerry precincts until they added up to the Miami herald count roughly (precincts 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 + absentee votes, yielding 2975 Kerry votes). If you add the respective Bush votes, you get 6283 votes - this is a difference of 143 to the Miami Herald count, so this is surely not the sample they've chosen. All other combinations of precincts work even worse.

Conclusion: No combination of precincts, with or without the absentee votes, matches the numbers of the Miami Herald.
(doesn't have to match it exactly, but at least up to a few votes).

The theory proposed by some that the sample of the Miami Herald is not representative because it excludes certain precincts is no longer valid.

The statistical absurdities continue to exist.

Send this data to Professor Freeman. He'll have a nice time :party:

I think we have a really strong case here, for empirical proof which backs up the statistical modeling of TIA and so many others here.

When compared to the unofficial precinct tallies, the hand count of these counties add 6 votes for bush and 3 votes for kerry.

My original reply was:
Precincts 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 15 + absentee -> MH count
which added 2 votes for bush and 9 votes for kerry. The revised set above is a better match.

If only I had read the rest of the thread I would have seen that this was already resolved.

I just got this from a Miami activist named Vilma ....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not familiar enough with Meg Laughlin. She is not the regular "political columnist" for the Miami Herald.

She in fact for the longest time wrote about local (Miami) general issues. As for the other reporter, David Kidwell, this is the first time I have ever seen his name.

He must be new or a recently hired reporter. Perhaps even recently promoted to being a reporter.

What I found interesting is that the Miami Herald did not send it's so-called experienced well-known political reporters.

Also, I found it especially interesting that LaFayette Election Supervisor Lana Morgan felt friendly enough that she asked the two reporters to have a "Pre-Thanksgiving" dinner with her and mostly likely - her family!

How cozy!

Something that one does not normally ask of "strangers", unless it is a social service agency helping out folks who are indigent / homeless and know they could not afford a Thanksgiving dinner.

It just seems that the LaFayette Elections Supervisor felt much too comfortable and familiar with the two reporters.

My question is WHY? Did she sense the two Miami Herald reporters were biased and in favor of Bush?

This report just does not pass the "smell test", as far as I am concerned.

VILMA :)

This was a reply in an Ohio forum thread posted by DU newcomer WhiteKnight1. It's very interesting, and I want to give it its' own thread here so more people are aware of it.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... /*About me:I have a graduate degree in computer science, and more than 15 years of experience as a software engineer working with highly reliable systems.I have a knack for looking at the results of software failures and figuring out what's wrong with the code. For now, I prefer to remain anonymous and will go by the handle: WhiteKnight(email: whiteknightfordemocracy@yahoo.com ).About the bizzare vote counts in one Ohio Precinct:After seeing the Associated Press story titled "Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes", I started thinking about the numbers reported in the story, whichare:Votes for Bush: 4258Votes for Kerry: 260 Total number of voters: 638It also says that Bush "actually received 365 votes". That means there must have been 13 votes for other candidates (638-260-365 = 13).I wondered how this result could have been produced. They called it a "failure", but I know a lot about how systems can fail, and this sounded fishy. Why were Kerry's vote totals recorded properly, but not Bush's? It's much more likely that a system failure would cause either no vote totals to be recorded at all, or that both totals would be corrupted.I suppose it could have been a hardware failure that occurred right after Kerry's vote total had been written to storage, and just as Bush's was being written. But that's likely to be a very narrow time window. It's possible, but sounds like a very rare failure mode. It just seems odd that out of the whole universe of possible failures, we get a failure that records Kerry's votes correctly, and corrupts Bush's total.Think of it this way: In basketball you know there are many ways a shot can fail to go in. It can go off the glass and miss, it can bounce off the front of the rim, rattle out, airball etc... etc... But there is one particular failed shot that's very rare: when the ball comes in at just the right trajectory with just the right speed, and it lodges between the rim and the backboard - just sticks there. I've seen it happen maybe a couple of times in years of watching the NBA.So think of the odds of a failure that records Kerry's votes correctly, but corrupts Bush's as analogous to the ball jamming there between the rim and backboard. Pretty rare failure huh? Well, it gets even worse:Why was the number off by only several thousand?If the votes are added up using a 4 byte unsigned integer, then the possible values range from 0 to 4,294,967,296 (over 4 Billion). If a random bit error or hardware storage error occurred, then why didn't Bush get say 3,239,568 extra votes in this particular "failure"? Most true failures would result in some wild number that you would immediately recognize as garbage.The analogy here is: not only did the basketball lodge between rim and glass, but the Spalding logo ended up perfectly horizontal, aligned front and center.Given all of this, I decided to explore ways that vote counting software could end up with these particular results. Was someone adding a percentage to the Bush votes? Was there some multiplier involved? After thinking about it for an hour or so, I decided to take a different tack: think like the person who is trying to rig the election. What would you do? You wouldn't really want to change the total number of voters. That might be too easy to detect given people being checked off on voter roles. Instead you would want to shift votes from one candidate to another. Maybe every 10th vote for kerry, you'd instead give to Bush.OK, that's pretty easy to program, but it wouldn't expain the bizzare results in this one precinct in Ohio. But... what if the evil programmer made a mistake? Maybe one line of code had an error they didn't catch. I decided to write a small vote counting program, and add in a function to steal every 10th vote. Once that was working I'd introduce a small error and see if the results came close the Ohio results reported by AP.The program below is the result. As you will see, there is one line of code that is supposed to add a stolen vote to Bush's total, and should be written as:b = b + 1; but (I theorize) it was mis-typed as:b = b + k; So instead of adding one stolen vote to Bush's total, it adds the running total of Kerry votes to Bush's total. Whoops! The output from the program with the typo in place is:starting electionElection results: b: 4258 k: 260 o: 13(the actual votes: b: 336 k: 288 o: 14)The output from the program with the typo corrected is:starting election Election results: b: 365 k: 260 o: 13 (the actual votes: b: 336 k: 288 o: 14)So the intent was to shift 29 votes from other candidates to Bush, but the one-line programming mistake gives him an extra 3922 votes.I'm not saying this proves that this is what happened, but it does indeed prove that a small, one-line programming error by an evildoer programmer could produce the results seen in this one Ohio precinct.-WhiteKnightp.s. Please circulate this as far and wide as possible. Thanks!*/#include <stdio.h>#include <string.h>// Vote totals for b=Bush k=Kery o=Otherint b=0, k=0, o=0;// The set of "real" books:int breal=0, kreal=0, oreal=0;//// Here's the hypothetical "patch" that the evildoer programmer// might have written://void robOhio(int creal, int* c) {// Look for every 10th vote from this candidate:if ((creal % 10)==0) {// OK, here's the bug. Should have been// b = b + 1;// Give the vote to bb = b + k; // Take it away from other candidate:*c = *c - 1;}}int main() {char votes<1000>;//// Here are the votes in a hypothetical order that I made up.// So in this example, the first two votes went to Kerry, the// next two to Bush, then one for Kery, one for Bush, one for // Other, and so on.//// The order of the votes does affect the final numbers but,// even if you change the order, the rough order of magnetude// of the bogus results stays about the same.////0 1 2 3 4 5//12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890strcpy(votes,"KKBBKBOKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 50strcat(votes,"KKBBKBKKOBKKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKOBKKBKKBKKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 100strcat(votes,"KKBBKBBKBKKKBBKBBKBBKKBOKBBKBBKKBKKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 150strcat(votes,"KKBKKBBKKBKKBKKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBOKKBKKKBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 200strcat(votes,"KKBKBBBKBBKKBKKBBKBBKKKBKBBKBOKKKBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 250strcat(votes,"KKBBKBBKBBKKBKKBBKBBKKBBKBOKBBKKBKKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 300strcat(votes,"KKKBKBBKBBKKKBKBKKBBKKBKKOKKBKKKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 350strcat(votes,"KKBKKBBKBBKKBBKKBKBOKKBKKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 400strcat(votes,"KKBKKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 450strcat(votes,"BKKBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKBKKBBKBBKKBKKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 500strcat(votes,"KKKBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKBKKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 550strcat(votes,"KKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBBKKKKKBBKBKKKBOKBBKBBKKBBKBBKBB"); // 600strcat(votes,"KKBBKBBKBBKKBBKBBKOBKOBKKBOKBOKKBBKBBK"); // 638printf("starting election\n");// Start counting votes:for (int i=0; i<strlen(votes); i++) {char v = votes;if (v=='B') {b = b + 1;breal = breal + 1; } else if (v=='K') {k = k + 1;kreal = kreal + 1;// This is not a vote for b, so steal some votes:robOhio(kreal, &k);} else if (v=='O') {o = o + 1;oreal = oreal + 1; // This is not a vote for b, so steal some votes:robOhio(oreal, &o);}}printf("Election results: b: %d k: %d o: %d\n",b,k,o);printf("(the actual votes: b: %d k: %d o: %d)\n",breal,kreal,oreal);}

I just started a new thread, this could be very big... Thanks for forwarding!

Even if you take out the possibility of fraud, what you have left seems to be a pretty error prone vote counting system.

So there are two problems here, and just on the basis of what the recounts revealed, seems like the whole state should be hand recounted.

and thought this additional info may be helpful:

SUWANNEE
County for Bush 6,138
Herald for Bush 6,140
County for Kerry 2,975
Herald for Kerry 2,984

I haven't compared this yet with the official precinct totals to see if there's a way to make it add up.

I am familiar with this number. Look what I've written before, post #72:

I picked the most pro-Kerry precincts until they added up to the Miami herald count roughly (precincts 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 + absentee votes, yielding 2975 Kerry votes).

Coincidence? Or did they really select the best pro-Kerry precincts?

The precinct-level data from Suwannee SOE adds to a different total than the county-level results from the Florida DOS http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/index.asp (same place as in post from ccarter84 below).

Suwannee County SOE unofficial results:
Bush 11,145
Kerry 4,513

Florida DOS results for Suwannee County:
Bush 11,153
Kerry 4,522

Anyone know for sure if the latter are the official results and if so, can we get them by precinct?

BTW, I'm not disputing your conclusion, just trying to help drill in and see where the numbers come from. I also emailed Meg Laughlin and asked very nicely for some of these details. Will post if I get any reply.

In your previous post, you refer to the *original* Herald article with the additional information

official count: 9138 votes for Bush, 2975 for Kerry

The online article doesn't mention these numbers. Where did you get them from, maybe from the printed newspaper, and can you vouch for it? Very important!

I was not upset, by the way, I don't feel that you are disputing me. It was just this number - 2975 - that caught my attention.

I live in Miami, subscribe to the Herald and have the printed copy in front of me.

It has a sidebox with the heading "COUNTING THE VOTES". That's where I got the county totals of 6138 for Bush and 2975 for Kerry.

of the article are different.

The printed version has the "SMART BOX" titled "COUNTING THE VOTES", while the online version does not.

9138 vs. 2975...great...so I know now which precincts they've chosen to feed the Herald reporters with.

This is worth a new thread, will take me half an hour or so...

it's 6138 vs. 2975.

Glad I could help!

-----Original Message-----
> > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 1:35 AM
> > To: Chardy, Al; Laughlin, Margaret; Kidwell, David
> > Subject: Apalled at the Irresponsible Journalism
> in Your Articles
> >
> >
> > In two recent Miami Herald articles, "Independent
> > vote
> > count confirms Bush win in northern Florida" &
> > another
> > concerning the checks of voter logs in Broward, I
> > seem
> > to have stumbled across blatant and irresponsible
> > partisan journalism in a major newspaper. To
> report
> > that your recount "confirms" the Bush win, or that
> > it
> > proves there was nothing out of the ordinary
> > occurring
> > is first of all factually incorrect, but most
> > importantly, opinionated and clearly is conveying
> a
> > biased conclusion. I am disgusted.
> >
> > Put this in your pipe and smoke it:
> > From the two totals printed in the first article,
> > Kerry picked up 37 votes over the "official" count
> > on
> > 7,952 total votes. The rest of the votes you
> counted
> > "nearly matched" the county's totals. (I'd like to
> > see
> > how nearly matched they really were) Multiply this
> > discrepancy over the 7.5 million Florida voters,
> and
> > you have Kerry gaining 35,000 votes. What if this
> > happened in Ohio? Would Kerry have conceded? And
> if
> > you're thinking the "discrepancies" should be
> evenly
> > distributed to favor both sides, you're right.
> But,
> > they don't. Show me one "irregularity" or
> > "unexplained
> > discrepancy" that favors Kerry, and I'll show you
> > 100
> > that favor Bush. I challenge you just to find one.
> > Now
> > that is the real story here, not what you've
> > printed.
> >
> > - BJ Nichols
> > Clearwater, FL




--- "Laughlin, Margaret" <MLaughlin@herald.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We did find votes that we counted for Kerry that
> the
> > machines didn't read
> > for him -- over 30 as you say. But even
> multiplying
> > 37 votes over three
> > counties over the rest of Florida's counties
> doesn't
> > make much of a
> > difference. Other Herald reporters are looking at
> > other anomalies.
> > Your attitude of our work is very similar to that
> of
> > the people who are made
> > at us for questioning the outcome enough to count
> > votes.
> > Best,
> > Meg Laughlin



-----Original Message-----
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:09 AM
> To: Laughlin, Margaret
> Subject: RE: Apalled at the Irresponsible Journalism
> in Your Articles
>
>
> I applaud your diligence in securing a hand count
> in these counties.
> But to say that this "proves" there was no
> conspiracy
> is irresponsible and completely ludicrous. I've
> already illustrated to you how 37 votes over that
> many
> counted would have affected the Ohio count, and
> Kerry
> most likely wouldn't have conceded. I urge you to
> print a retraction.
>
> Secondly, how did the Herald manage to get
> authorized
> to perform this "recount"? Groups have been trying
> to
> do this for some time now, and can't get access. I
> find it a little odd that all of the sudden there
> was
> a media group allowed access without warning and,
> we have "proof" that the election was
> fair and square. I'm still appalled.



--- "Laughlin, Margaret" <MLaughlin@herald.com> wrote:

> The two reporters never said this.




Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:19:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: Apalled at the Irresponsible Journalism in Your Articles
To: "Laughlin, Margaret" <MLaughlin@herald.com>

From the Macon Telegraph website, posted 11/27.
Article by Meg Laughlin & David Kidwell - Miami
Herald:

4th Paragraph - And I quote: "The conclusion: No
conspiracy."

My point is not whether your facts or quotes are
accurate. My point is that conclusions were drawn that
were based on isolated examples. The two problems with
these conclusions are that they are a) wrong and b)
obviously biased.

Do a little real research. Read Dr. Stephen Freeman's
report from Penn. Read the CalTech/Berkeley study. Pay
attention to what's happening in Ohio. There was a
rally there yesterday with Jesse Jackson. Voting
machines are being denied in black precincts. Machines
are counting backwards, adding invisible votes. There
is a story here. It's not what you've reported.
Please, please remember why you became a journalist in
the first place. It's your job to report the truth.
Unbiased, non-partisan, and complete. The whole truth.
Help America uncover that. You will feel good about
yourself, I promise.

- BJ

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But can someone please write this reporter very politely, without being in her face, and ask which precincts they counted? This is absolutely critical to know the answer to.

Never mind, I've written.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sniff Sniff Sniff Sniff.....

Ewwwwwww What's That Smell????

Welcome to DU!

(wondering if you'll be here long enough to read this post)

cute...

that there was no fraud involved in Florida and Bush** won Florida with no hassles. Once this is written in stone, people tend to believe it and not want it retracted.

It is so frustrting. So what's the point?

we are just giving ourself some type of false hope? I mean it doesnt seem like Kerry really cares about a recount effort. Also, it doesnt seem like Bush or the republicans are even the least bit worried. I mean Im all for it but it just doesnt seem like it is ever going to get there unless Kerry or someone else high up in the party stands up and says Now... We need a recount Now... The American people deserve to know their vote was counted.

How in the hell do YOU know whether or not they are "worried"?

For that matter, how do YOU know what Kerry's thoughts and feelings are?

And, finally, guess what? People other than Kerry are working on this, people who CARE about this country and want to PROTECT our DEMOCRACY and our RIGHTS. You can help by DONATING to those causes, helping us to research, and working with US. Or attend the protest in Ohio on Saturday. I'm driving over 800 miles one way to do just that and volunteer in any way that I can.

If you don't see any value in helping, and prefer to just whine and spew negativity, I suggest you go watch TV or something instead of posting on DU.

Well if your leader and by leader I mean John Kerry has yet to make a public speach supporting recounts in Ohio and Florida its kind of hard to want to help. If Kerry was really behind this effort he would be in Ohio not, Jesse Jackson. Also, I never once said I didnt support recount efforts or that I wouldnt help if I could. I stayed up all night Nov 2 and all day Nov 3 hoping that Ohio would be overturned and given to Kerry, did you? I have hoped and prayed everyday since Nov. 03 that something would break and Kerry would be announced president, have you? So dont take your anger and emotions out on me. When I sayed the Republicans and Bush didnt look "worried", I was just stating the obvious. I mean he has visited numerous countries since the election and appointed new cabinet members. To me it seems like the least of his concerns are the protests in Ohio.

"want to PROTECT our DEMOCRACY and our RIGHTS" and one of those rights happends to be freedom of speach, right? Ya thats what I thought. SO, Ill post whatever I want, whenever I want, thanx.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your mathematical skills should not be wasted. Did you consider getting your PH.D in Mathematics?

This should be sent to every newspaper that quotes "No flaw in Bush's state win."

Union County -> 24 vote swing to Kerry out of about 4500 total votes = 0.5% swing
Lafayette County -> 11 vote swing to Kerry out of about 3300 total votes = 0.3% swing
forget partially recounted Suwanee since the error margin is too great and you have an average swing of 0.4% towards Kerry. but i thought Bush won Florida by 5%. but these counties were not randomly selected.

still, the significant thing here is that these two recounts produce swings in Kerry's favor - add that to all the other "glitches" and the exit polls showing in each case the official tally being weighted in Bush's favor and there's definitely a case to answer.

out of two recounts, the odds of both adding to Kerry's total are 1/4. if a full recount of Suwanee also added to Kerry's total, as the partial recount indicates it may, then the odds of all three of these counties swinging towards Kerry are 1/8. there must be a case now for recounting more counties in Florida.

They've performed a major screw-up.

In one county Kerry picked up twenty four votes in a handcount of 4,668 votes or .005%


In another county Kerry picked up eleven votes out of 3,300 votes cast or .003%


Those numbers seem to be minuscule and within the tolerance of any vote counting system...


Also isn't .005% rounded zero?

24 out of 4668 is about 0.5% and 11 out of 3300 is 0.3%

but kerry lost fl by 5%...



where is the original poster getting a much bigger shift...


also, i can see how folks screw up the optical scan by not pressing down hard enough with the magic marker....

but in Suwannee county it is more, but since that one is only partially recounted i think it's dangerous to use it. we don't need to exaggerate here - the fact that there is a shift to kerry in two strongly Republican counties is highly significant in itself, and casts a lot of doubt on the result in Florida.

It won't change the election results, but if you want to discredit the president you can do it. Put in a request to see all the ballots in flordia through their sunshine laws, just like the NYT and CNN did after 2000.

Bring in an auditing firm to give your results some neutral credibility, and recount the entire state.

Unfortunately when this was done in Florida we still lost or you would have heard a lot more about it. But it could work this time.


TC

at least not at first. All you need is a 'sample', with whatever criteria you choose.

In the meantime, the ballots are now on public records and anyone can ask to view them. You are just not allowed to touch them and you have to pay for the service. Otherwise, the ballots are there for the counting. At least in the optical scanner counties.

Sept 12, 2001. Now, why do you suppose we didn't hear more about it?

For what it's worth, here's a link to a CNN story abuot the Miami Herald recount from 2000. (I couldn't find the actual Miami Herald story.)

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/26/bush.florida/index.html

According to the CNN article:

'The Herald review suggested that Gore would have gained no more than 49 votes if a recount of Miami-Dade ballots had been allowed.

"That would have been 140 too few to overcome Bush's lead, even when joined with Gore gains in Volusia, Palm Beach and Broward counties -- the three other counties where Gore had requested manual recounts," The Herald reported.

Mark Siebel, The Herald's managing editor for news, said a team of reporters and researchers examined 10,644 disputed presidential ballots from those counties.'

I was both on the recount teams and on the teams after the election. Gore lost on all but one count, ironically he would have won on a statewide count conducted with the guidelines that BUSH had asked for. His margin would have been 321 votes. In each of the other cases, including the one Gore wanted, he would have lost by somewhere between 312 and 1260 votes.

TC

The wonderful Katherine Harris "felons list" erroneously removed many thousands - (have to look it up to get the right number) people from the voter rolls. Does your number include an analysis for some large percentage of those voting for Gore?

right or wrong tells you who is properly eligable to vote. That wasn't challenged. I'm talking about the actual votes that we could count and the recounting of those votes. In that, Gore lost.

It's not true that Gore would have lost in all but one of the scenarios. There were nine scenarios examined in the study and each one was looked at under two different criteria (majority vs. unanimous agreement) for a total of eighteen "results". Bush wins in seven cases and Gore wins in the other eleven cases.

Here's an article from the American Statistician that shows all the results:
http://www.amstat.org/misc/PresidentialElectionBallots.pdf (slow loading pdf)

Specifically look at Table 11 and the text that starts in the last paragraph on page 12.

Just mentioned this DU post!!!!

Listen live:
http://www.radiopower.org/talkradio/

"In several studies, the UC Berkeley study for example, the three counties you reported on showed no signs of irregularities or problems."

If counties where discrepancies were not expected are showing these kinds of problems, there is one heck of a mess in Florida.

:dem:

They may have stopped counting in Suwanee county because the counts of the precincts corresponded almost exactly with the counts registered on November 2nd. The extrapolation being performed only has meaning if the the ballots were being counted in a completely random fashion.

There are a two possibilities:

(1) The nearly 60% count could have arisen from having whole precincts counted with the rest being completely uncounted. The county is certainly not completely homogenous, thus it would be no surprise to find that Bush might poll 67% in that 60%, but poll 77% in the uncounted portion.

(2) The 60% count arises from a partial count of all or most of the precincts, but the tallies from each of the individual precincts is almost spot on (as measured by percent) to the percentages garnered by each candidate on November 2nd.

Without knowing what that 60% consists of, there is no rational basis for claiming fraud. The extrapolations are meaningless.

And there is only one precinct in the county which could add enough votes to the Kerry column to produce these lopsided results. I have just written to Ms. Laughlin requesting information on which precincts were counted. Your objection will have force only if the precinct in question was counted. I'm curious to learn the response.

Take option 1:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x93139

Thanks for the link. I thought this might have been addressed inside the thread, but I was reluctant to read through every single post to find it. Your analysis is convincing.

delicious thought. Can't the Dems spare 2 out of 17,000 lawyers to read DU?

It is delightful to read someone persevering in the face of being told there was nothing amiss and finding much amiss with the voting process.

Every time I hear about Bunnypant's second term, I yell at the TV, "They're not done counting yet."

this article, and she just wrote me back. In her email she asks me to

"Tell me why you think our totals were wrong."

Below is what I wrote to her as well as her response. I guess I wrote her without knowing enough first. I would like some advice as to what I should write her back with.

My email to her:

You picked three counties in which there never was a question, and in
fact created a suspicion in the fact that every anomaly that you
uncovered, though small, was always in Bush's favor. Your conclusion is
the wrong one.


Her response email:

We came up with a count total based upon what we counted. Tell me why
you think our totals were wrong.

Thanks,
Meg Laughlin

Meg Laughlin and David Kidwell,

In your article you did not support this statement, "The Herald counted almost 60 percent of the votes in Suwannee County, where nearly 64 percent of the voters are registered Democrats. The newspaper's total from those precincts: 6,140 votes for Bush and 2,984 for Kerry, which nearly matched the county's official tally."

Would you please provide the precincts that were included in the partial recount of Suwannee County? It would allay the concerns of the many. Standing alone the numbers included don't support the accuracy of the first count, context is required.

The reason they don't support the augment that the first count was correct is that if the numbers you printed were a representative sampling of the entire county then the count for the entire county was off considerably favoring Mr.Bush. If on the other hand, the precincts you counted had the same results in the first count, and the sample was not representative of the whole, your position would be supported (for the recounted part of Suwannee at least).

As the article stands no conclusions can be drawn about the accuracy of the count in Suwanee County.



Thank you

I emailed Meg Laughlin to ask which precincts and she replied:

These are the Suwannee precincts we checked: 01, 02, 05, 07, 12,15, absentee
and early ballots. We chose these precincts randomly.

where is the presinct by presinct election data for this?

I wouldn't say the totals are wrong, only the conclusion. The data simply don't support a conclusion of "no conspiracy."

I don't have the email addresses, but here's what I would write. Feel free to borrow:

Dear Ms. Laughlin and Mr. Kidwell,

Thank you for recounting some of the Presidential votes in Florida. I have some serious concerns about the data you presented for Suwanee County:

Official tally: 28.8% for Kerry (that is, 4522 out of 11153 + 4522)

Your count: 32.7% for Kerry (that is, 2984 out of 2984 + 6140)

This is a significant discrepancy!

The recount would need to be completed in order to draw any real conclusion, but it certainly looks like Kerry may have been shortchanged by 4% of the total votes.

Please, PLEASE complete your recount of Suwanee County and let us know the results.

Thank you.

Does anyone have the exit poll data for Suwanee County?

I'd like to compare the following numbers:
% official tally for Kerry: 28.8% of Bush + Kerry votes
% reporter's count for Kerry: 32.7% of Bush + Kerry votes
% exit poll for Kerry: ??

If the exit poll data is close to the reporter's data, it would give a strong case to say "maybe the exit polls were right."

All of this conjecture about Kerry actually winning Florida assumes the hand count is more reliable than the machine count. This may or may not be true, but is is certainly true that any two hand counts are not going to produce the same numbers. If the Miami Herald recounted all three counties you might find that the +35 pickup for Kerry would turn into -35 for Kerry in Union and Lafayette Counties. As for the results in Suwannee, again I will point out the Herald likely only counted certain precincts within the County and found that those totals were the same as Nov 2nd, however, I will await a clarification from the paper.

Hand counts always have two counters per "pile", and observers from each campaign. There is no way "you might find that the +35 pickup for Kerry would turn into -35 for Kerry" in a second hand count. Hogwash.

By the way, Canada counts paper ballots by hand. They have smooth elections. Check out this article from four years ago:

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSUSElection0011/28_canadianelection-ap.html

And here's lots more on the merits of paper ballots and hand counting:

http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?id=12

It was an education in the art of counting large numbers.

Banks use them. Tax auditors certainly use them.

Why not allow ballots to be counted by machine as they are now for a first result, but also do random hand counts in randomly chosen precincts to ensure the results are accurate? If irregularities are found, a manual recount can be done for the areas(or machines) affected. This would be a balance against systematic error in card readers, and other forms of possible election fraud/counting errors.

There would be very small overhead cost, other than paying a few people for a few hours of work. It would at least leave everyone knowing the true results of the election.


Alex Hamilton
Read my latest article: The Media is Finally Outraged
Visit my site: Impeachment by the People

the precincts in Suwannee County that they wanted to count. They did not ask to count the whole county. Too bad they didn't mention that fact in their report.

:kick:

After a recount the Bush vote drops nearly 2% with a consequent pickup by Kerry, yielding a nearly 4% change in the spread between them, and the Miami Herald calls that inconsequential? Talk about burying the real story.

Note: this is just using the 2 full counties and the 60% "sample" of the other one.

Bush pre-recount = 17099/23627 = 71.99%
Kerry pre-recount = 6618/23627 = 28.01%

Bush post-recount = 11985/17089 = 70.13%
Kerry post-recount = 5104/17089 = 29.87%

Bush drop = -1.86%
Kerry pickup = 1.86%

Change in distance between them = 3.71%

It is interesting that the percentage change was small in the two counties that they completed counting (Bush lost .35% in Union and .13% in Lafeyette), but large in the one that they only did a 60% count in (Bush lost 3.86% in Suwannee). It seems like they wanted to bury that fact, by lumping it in with the other two while mentioning small absolute numbers of votes, and not actually working out the percentage changes for the county where the change was large.

It looks like they intentionally soft-pedalled a result that shows significant changes after their recount.

On edit - it also looks like they stopped the count early, so that they could avoid reporting it in a manner that showed an absolute vote change.

My question remains.... if the Miami Herald has no interest in reporting the biggest news story of the century. Indeed, if they're in bed with the republicans in a vote fraud scheme....

Why would they report this at all?

Why wouldn't they just lie?

Those don't make sense.

The fact that they didn't play up this angle of the story doesn't mean they are in bed with a fraud. It just means they are afraid to go out on a limb as far as the conventional wisdom goes about the recent election. When some of the facts became inconvenient, they sort of ignored them or fudged them, because they didn't want to be seen as going against the grain and contributing to crazy conspiracy stories. After all, this is just three small counties, not the biggest story of the century (that would be the reasoning).

As to why they reported at all - I don't know. It might be that not reporting it would be seen as suppression of the story, if word got out. Perhaps they couldn't trust certain people in the newsroom not to go to bloggers.

The fact remains that the vote percentages changed quite substantially from the pre to post recount, at least in my little calculation. Has that been debunked? Personally, the theory that the other 40% of the polls would have corrected this variance if they would have been counted is just that - a theory. I see no evidentiary base for it. Furthermore, it could be tested by the simple expedient of sending the reporters back to finish the count.