Still don't believe they stole it? Look here

[tkmorris]

This chart shows a breakdown by county of Florida, listing the voters in each broken down by party affiliation, and comparing expected vote totals to the reported results. It is further arranged by seperating the results into two sections, one for "touch-screen" counties and the other for optical scan counties.

http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

Surprisingly, the results reported by touch-screen counties seem fairly accurate overall especially if you take into account the GOTV effort by Dems that was occuring on the ground here. Let me tell you, by dinnertime on Tuesday we KNEW we were getting huge Dem turnout and the Repubs looked demoralized in their efforts. In most areas there simply WAS no organized Repub effort. But all of that is anecdotal and will be tossed aside by skeptics.

Now look at the optical scan counties. Again and again and again, the expected results there based upon party registration were off. In fact they were not even close. In Liberty County for example, the registered voters there are fully 88.3% Democrats versus a mere 7.9% Republican. However the results reported there indicate that fully 65% of the votes cast for President went to Bush. In heavily populated Duval County Democrats outnumber Republicans on the voter rolls by a good 7% and yet Bush won there by over 60,000 votes, winning the actual vote count by around 60/40. In Baker county there are only about 3200 voters registered as Republicans in the whole county, yet on election day Bush garnered over 7700 votes there. These are just examples, the trend was universal in all the optiscreen counties. Don't believe me, look for yourself. And note this: In those Optiscan counties Bush received just over 600,000 votes more than other data suggest he should have. This by itself is far more than his margin of victory in Florida.

Please note that these counties, touch-screen and optical scan, are intermingled all over the state. Some counties reported results more or less as expected and others posted results that are simply eyepopping for Bush and the only difference in them is the method of voting (and thus counting) used.

These results are just not possible. They aren't. Anyone out there who has taken a basic statistics course will recognize right away upon viewing this that it cannot possibly be a true representation of what happened on Tuesday. I believed there was fraud by 10 PM Tuesday but I didn't really KNOW it in my heart and soul until I saw this.

http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

[driver8]

1. I believe!

Wow!! I cannot believe what I am seeing! That is utterly amazing to me. Anyone that looked at these numbers would say that something is not right.

Rove and his boys are unbelievable -- they must have balls the size of elephants!!

[newyawker99]

19. Hi driver8!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[moondust]

2. Wow!

My untrained eye tells me that the percent change numbers in the bottom table should look about the same as those in the top table, at least in the same range. It's quite a dramatic variance.

[RhodaGrits]

3. Graphic based on this data -

http://www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

4. Unreal

If that's not suspicious what is?

[Doohickie]

5. "The page cannot be displayed"

Bad link. I can't believe it's high traffic on a Saturday morning.

[F.Gordon]

6. This is VERY misleading data. Complete Horseshit.

First of all, the author of this bullshit data makes one incredibly stupid error that discounts the entire "report".

They make the assumption that 100% of those that voted for bush* were Republican and 100% of those that voted for Kerry were Democrats.

I only researched the first county listed: Broward. There are 236,839 unaffiliated voters registered in this county. I guess they all stayed home on election day. :eyes:

I would like to see one more Exit Poll conducted in Florida. But this time poll the people who didn't vote. I'd be curious to know how many didn't vote because they were afraid their vote wouldn't be counted.

[moondust]

7. I don't think so.

Even if it does make that assumption the percent change results in both tables would tend to be consistent without regard to voting method. As it stands, though, they are WILDLY different, far more different than could be explained away by crossover voters.

[F.Gordon]

8. Where?

As it stands, though, they are WILDLY different

I'm looking at it right now. I don't see it. Which County?

[moondust]

11. It's the ranges.

The range of percent change values (throwing out a couple outliers on each end) is roughly:

TOP TABLE:
REP = 17.3 to 42 (most in the 20s); DEM = 11 to 40.

BOTTOM TABLE:
REP: 28 to 297; DEM = minus 69 to plus 26.


If the assumption you mentioned above is essentially a constant (number of crossover voters will not vary widely from place to place, method to method) then the only thing apparently accounting for the widely different ranges from top table to bottom is the voting/counting method.

[F.Gordon]

14. Sorry, that doesn't help me

I don't live in Florida and I've only been there once .... and will never go back. (humidity and bugs) So I can't glance at these counties and know anything about them.

Point to a specific county so I can research it. As I've already mentioned the data in this "report" is flawed, so we need to narrow it down to see just how accurate or inaccurate it is.

[moondust]

17. My point

won't be proved one way or another by researching any given county.

My simple point is that the percent change numbers in the bottom table should be similar to those in the top table and they clearly are not. The method of voting/counting should not make any difference.

If you just want to refute the data I'm sure it's all a matter of public record. Go for it!

[F.Gordon]

18. Why not?

won't be proved one way or another by researching any given county.

You need to factor in a hell of a lot more information for these tables to be accurate.

If the top table weights higher numbers to Democratic voters then it doesn't prove anything IF the 2nd table weights repukes. You did know the sad truth about Dems? We tend to vote in lower percentages (turnout) than repukes. :( And you HAVE to factor in the unaffiliated voter weighted to the specific county.

For example, I see a few counties in the 2nd table that I'd be willing to guess had a higher unaffiliated turnout for bush* than Kerry.

[Orangepeel]

9. I'm not discounting this. But there is another factor

that has to be taken into account.

By and large, touchscreen voting machines replaced punch card ballot machines, which were disproportionately used in Democratic counties prior to 2002.

By and large, optical scan machines are used in counties that, as of 2000, already had up to date voting equipment.

[F.Gordon]

12. Fair enough

Then review ALL the information. The problem I have with the Church of Bev Harris is that they go from "optical scan machines" ... leap over all the information and land on "fraud".

For example, I picked up on something odd when reviewing the florida registration numbers that everyone seems to be missing regarding those states (like Florida) where the repukes controlled the election. It's not "fraud", but I'd say it is at the very least a form of psychological manipulation.

Check out the number of 3rd Parties in registrations and on the ballot in key swing states.....

[Touchdown]

13. Diebold makes optical scan machines too.

They are hooked up to modems as well. They use the same software that Diebold's touch screen machines use. It's called GEMS. They can be just as corruptable as touch screens. The only difference is there's an auditable paper trail.

[F.Gordon]

16. Hi neighbor

:hi:

I understand all of that. And I understand how this is an excellent vehicle for fraud. But damn, the way everyone is going about this is discrediting the entire effort. Bogus data doesn't help the case.... it hurts it.

[Randi_Listener]

10. "Exit poll of people that didn't vote"

How can you take an exit poll of people that stayed home? The exit polls are taken at the polling place. There's aren't many people that didn't vote hanging around the local election office.

[F.Gordon]

15. My point

I shouldn't have called it an "exit poll". Call it an "apathy poll". I'd be interested to know how many people just plain didn't vote because they've had this "voter fraud issue" pounded in their head.

[Randi_Listener]

22. To what fucking end.

[F.Gordon]

23. Believe it or not Spanky I'm on your side

And I hope they find a video of Cheney switching the programs in the voting booths in Ohio and Florida because you're going to go into terminal melt down if you don't get a grip.

To answer your question, I'm seeing some low turnout numbers in both of the tables. That means.....people didn't vote. Why? I'm only asking if there is still a post Florida 2000 hangover .... combined with all the hype on this issue pushed from both sides prior to the election .... that may have caused a few people to say; "fuck it, I'm not voting because the system is rigged and my vote won't count anyway".

That is the fucking end I'm seeking by asking the question.

[Eloriel]

24. I don't see what difference it makes

Or put another way, that seems like an entirely different subject, perhaps for a different thread.

What we've got in these tables are the people who DID vote, and the rather "interesting" patterns (and questions) those numbers raise.

I'm also more than a bit curious about your concern about the non-voters and their reasons for not voting. Unfortunately, your theory about their concern over vote fraud turning them into non-voters doesn't seem to hold water. Record turnout nationwide -- the most in decades. I don't recall ANY data showing FL somehow didn't follow the national trend, and I do believe the media would've jumped all over it because your "theory" about it is exactly what many of the heartily pro-Diebold election officials around the nation have expressed as one of their "concerns" as they try to shut up or just counter the BBV activists. If FL had demonstrated lower voter turnout, you bet the pro-Diebold-et.al. folks would've been all over it. "See? Voters were so frightened by having these questions and concerns and problems raised that they didn't vote."

Far more likely, IMO, that where there might be a "low turnout" in your eyes in some counties (I don't see it except perhaps in Hendry county), that absentee or early votes could have been "lost" -- not uncommon, unfortunately, in those areas where vote fraud and vote suppression are practiced.

[F.Gordon]

26. Really?

I'm also more than a bit curious about your concern about the non-voters and their reasons for not voting.

You're correct, this should be a subject for another thread but I'm afraid that most of the responses would be the same as yours. "There was record turnout.... the election was stolen...fraud ...fraud"

Any type of concrete discussion on this topic would be drowned out by the current "topic du jour". And I'm not offering this as a theory as to why we lost Florida and Ohio, I'm only expressing concern over the very real negative impact that waving all these Fraud Flags could have on future elections. Especially when there is still no concrete evidence to support your "theory".

I've read all the stories, seen all the fancy charts and graphs, but I've still not heard one documented story from the field. Not. One.

Maybe if we had these "BBV activists" actually working with the rest of us in the days and weeks leading up to the Election, and on Election day, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

It's bad enough that we lost and I'm truly hoping that someone can prove your "theory" because you are setting yourself up for another huge punch in the stomach if they don't. Personally I'd rather see all this energy directed towards Election and Campaign Finance Reform, but that's just me. Your DU "dumb ass troll lying in wait who doesn't know jack shit and hasn't a clue".

Peace and Good Luck

[DuaneBidoux]

20. I've already seen something that negates Liberty county

from being suspect. Someone else posted the election results from the past four elections. They're a panhandle county bordering Alabama and they have voted for Republican Presidents 4 or 5 straight times.

I don't remember where Duval county is, but I would suggest that someone try and find how they voted in the first Gore/Bush election. There are certain Florida counties that are rural and have people registered as Democrats (since forever) but vote Republican.

TO me the single most suspect thing about these charts is the tremendous dropoff in Democratic particpation in ONLY the optical screen machines and the tremendous increase in participation in ONLY the optical screen machines. I wouldn't have been surprised to see an increase in Republican particpation, but I'll be damned if Democrats didn't show up to vote. I just don't believe that (no evidence).

[Awsi Dooger]

21. Duval County is Jacksonville, bordering Georgia

It voted 58% for Bush in 2000, although it probably should have been closer to 55 or 56% minus the spoilage of 10-20,000 votes in heavily black precincts. They had one of the infamous two page presidential ballots.

[gauguin57]

25. Has a statewide recount been requested

(as it should have been in 2000) and would that help?