Help needed - San Diego Election

There are two things I'd like you to do:
1) Click this link to the California Secretary of State's website. You will see a table of numbers there detailing the vote in CA 50, as of June 9. Please confirm that those numbers are the same numbers I am using in sample below. You can easily do so by copying and pasting those numbers in your post.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/Special/cd50/elections_cd50_genresults.htm


2) Read over the numbers below and see if any significant errors in the computation can be found.

----------------------


Election numbers are random numbers, right? IOW, the numbers should have no relation to each other, right? Well there seems to be some relation in the numbers below. It all works on dividing the numbers by 11 ( written below as: /11=). Maybe there is some number theory that explains all this, but here is what I found: (These are the numbers pulled from the CA SOS website).


Brian P. Bilbray Republican 64,554 /11= 5868(rounded) x 11 = 64548 + 6 = 64,554


Francine Busby Democratic 59,021 /11= 5365(rounded) x 11 = 59015 + 6 = 59,021


William Griffith Independent 4,846 /11= 440(rounded) x 11 = 4840 + 6 = 4,846


Paul King Libertarian 1,995 /11= 181(rounded) x 11 = 1991 + 4 = 1995


130416 total votes election /11= 11856

When divided by 11, three of the four candidate's numbers are divisible by 11 with the result rounded and then re multiplying by 11, then adding 6 to that number, one comes up with the published results of three candidates. The fourth is odd as it requires 4 added to the number to equalize.

Then, you have the total number of votes which are divisible by 11.

Too many relations going on for me to believe these are random numbers, but then, what do I know?

Numbers from:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/Special/cd50/elections_cd50_genresults.htm

United States Representative District 50

As of June 9, 2006 at 7:27 a.m.
Precincts Reporting 100% (500 of 500)
Registered Voters 355,409
Ballots Cast 134,302
Turnout 37.79%


Candidate Party Votes Percent
Paul King Libertarian 1,995 1.53%
Brian P. Bilbray Republican 64,554 49.50%
Francine Busby Democratic 59,021 45.26%
William Griffith Independent 4,846 3.72%

Now go on and click the link and check the numbers. I have been told that I am using old numbers. I need you to help with confirming the validity.

Besides, the numbers change in county offices all the time, but the numbers here are from the state! And they do have a certain aroma, eh?

In any set of numbers or letters (even random ones) you can find patterns. This is similar to how the Bible Code nonsense works. It is really meaningless.

Didn't pan out at all. But if you want to try and prove your case, please do. I am no math expert.

Give your reasoning for using the number 11 to divide by. Give your reason for why that one specific candidate gets a 4 instead of a 6. Why is that formula so special?

Taking another set of numbers you just craft your formula to match the set of numbers to create patterns. I'm out the door in just a few minutes for an overnight stay in the mountains, but it seems that the probabilities could be computed with some thought by figuring out the discrete sample set, the probabilty of each member m(i) occurring, and how many events (a subset of a sample set) satifies our critiera for a solution.

You can also use number tricks like this to make it look like you are doing magic when you aren't. Some number stuff is counter-intuitive. For example if you have only 23 in a room the chance of any two of them having the same birthday is greater than 50%. FOr 30 people the chance jumps to over 70% and for 40 people there is an over 90% chance that two share the same birthday.

These numbers were/are on the CA SOS website. Confirm or repute?

The equation used is a theory. You hypothesis something and then test it, right? It appears my test shows a relationship between those numbers from the CA SOS website. They do not appear to be random, do they?

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/Special/cd50/elections_cd50_genresults.htm

Special General Election - June 6, 2006
Semi Final Official Canvass

United States Representative District 50

As of June 9, 2006 at 7:27 a.m.
Precincts Reporting 100% (500 of 500)
Registered Voters 355,409
Ballots Cast 134,302
Turnout 37.79%

Candidate
Party
Votes
Percent

Paul King
Libertarian
1,995
1.53%

Brian P. Bilbray
Republican
64,554
49.50%

Francine Busby
Democratic
59,021
45.26%

William Griffith
Independent
4,846
3.72%

This district is entirely contained within San Diego County.
*Vacancy resulting from the resignation of Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

----------------------------------------------

BeFree, I went to the Sos Site, and the SD Registrar site, on Fri 6/9, and there was a total blank--NOTHING on this race, no mention of the race, no returns.

These numbers, which they claim to have posted on 6/9 at 7:57 a.m., were NOT THERE.

The numbers are the same as yours. WHEN did you get these numbers?

I understand what you're trying to do--to INFER the fraudster program from how the numbers relate to one another. I believe that this is a valid method of investigation (it is used in banking investigations, for instance), but we need a statistician/mathematician to look at it. Try www.USCountVotes.org--Kathy Dobbs or Ron Baiman. I think Bradblog is in communication with Baiman. If anyone can figure this out, it's them. Steven Freeman (who works with them) is another good bet for being able to figure out if these relationships point to fraud.

Personally, I think that "6" factor is damn weird, and could be a fraudster techie joke (dark humor--666/Armageddon, 6/6/06 date of primary, three 6's needed to complete the numeric relationship).

Subject line is too general. I thought you needed phone callers, letter writers, ballot counters, whatever...

Post: "Need math/statistics help on SD CA-50 election." Something like that. Draw the math freaks out of the woodwork. Maybe we have a new TIA hidden among the lurkers. (Hey, TIA, you watching this? Much love to you! Get well! You've done your part! Now LIVE!) :patriot: :applause: :patriot:

:kick:

Right now I just need people to click the the link, and confirm that my numbers are from the CA SOS website. Kind of a documentation.

If this thread does not capture the attention of REAL math folks, then I will repost later. Where is TIA, I bet he could shoot down my theory in a heartbeat?

Who here can't click a link and tell us what they find? What is so hard about that? Afraid of getting involved, maybe? Afraid the California Secretary of State is gonna track you and the next thing you know the jackboots are knocking at your door?

Well, what then?

Click the link and report here what you find. That's all I am asking. Two courageous posters have done so. Who else is brave enough?

on the site. As far as my math skills go, I still need to carry 1's when performing simple addition.

That's all I wanted. If this ever goes anywhere, I can point to this thread to show that the numbers used were on that site for several days. That I did not pull them out of thin air.

I don't know what they were reporting before 6/9/06. (I'm curious as to how you figured out all the Sec of State numbers were divisible by 11 with 6 being added to get the final value - it's amazing you noticed that. I'm not sure that it's all that improbable (relatively):
If you divide any number by 11, (original number=B; so B/11
then take the value that results and drop off the decimal, (this integer=A)
then multiply the resulting integer by 11, (=A*11)
there is a 1/11 chance that you'd have to add 6 to the result to get the original value (B = A*11 + x; where 0<=x<=10)

(It's kind of like looking at a license plate and saying: gee, what were the chances of me seeing this exact license plate today? Well, the probability is quite small, but nonetheless, you saw it.)

http://www.sdvote.org/election/congress.xml

THESE RESULTS ARE UNOFFICIAL
Last updated on: 06-09-06 at: 16:59:21

There are approximately 35455 Absentee / Provisional ballots still to be counted

BRIAN BILBRAY - REP
69617
49.51

FRANCINE BUSBY - DEM
63489
45.15%

W. GRIFFITH - IND
5318
3.78%

PAUL KING - LIB
2201
1.57%

The numbers found on the SoS site are the numbers produced before absentee votes were added, so these numbers are the totals from just machine tallies. They have been posted for 4 days now, from thurs. night until now.

Appreciate the analysis of the equation, but still not convinced the end results are not 'funny'.

Why 11? If you wanted to easily make one a winner, you would program a machine to count 6 votes for candidate B for every 5 votes that were cast for candidate A.

with a remainder less than the divisor.

77/11 = 7. no remainder
78/11 = 7 remainder 1
79/11 = 7, remainder 2

You can argue that it's a bit weird that 3 of the 4 races were divisible by 11 with the remainder being *6* for those 3 races. But one race had a remainder of *4*. And the total number of votes cast had a remainder of *0*. So the pattern really breaks down. And the probability for all the races to be divisible by 11 with a remainder of *6* is the same as the probability for all the races to have the remainders that they do.

That three of the four race's numbers have a realtionship. What are the chances of that happening with random numbers, especially those of such magnitude? What are the odds?

Then, you add up the remainders 6+6+6+4 and that sum of 22 is divisible by 11.

What are the odds of 11 being such a large factor(integer?) in every number produced by the machines?

as well, and that would always result in a remainder of 0.
That's a pattern, too.

edit: spelling