Ohio:Delays at polls weren't a scheme [Voting machines distributed evenly]

[tritsofme]

When they stood on the floor of Congress recently to protest the results of Ohio's presidential vote, Democrats told a national audience about their suspicious hunch: People in Democratic strongholds were short-changed on voting machines on Election Day.

Voter groups and activists have lobbed the same accusation for weeks. Long lines in urban areas, such as Cleveland, kept John Kerry supporters from voting, they say.

But a Plain Dealer analysis shows that, in Cuyahoga County at least, the elections board distributed machines equally to city and suburban polling locations.

The long lines at some locations appear to be more the result of timing, new voters and overwhelmed poll workers, not necessarily a shortage of machines.

Before the Nov. 2 election, the elections board allotted each Cleveland precinct one machine for every 117 registered voters within its boundaries - the same ratio of machines that suburban precincts received

http://www.cleveland.com/politics/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1105957870247212.xml

[RaulVB]

1. Your agenda is quite clear

The OWNER of the Cleveland Plain Dealer TRIED TO FORCE THE EDITORIAL BOARD TO ENDORSE "*"

Did you "forget" to post that?

[tritsofme]

2. And IIRC the Plain-Dealer made no endorsement at all

this year, after endorsing Bush in 2000.

Do you take issue with the facts presented in the article?

[RaulVB]

4. Which "facts"?

All I see is your empty attempt to distort a "paper's report"!

And to "present" that as a "version" that we should accept without questioning the evidently wrong assumptions that the "article/study" (and you) are pushing.

[leftyandproud]

5. stop the conspiracies and look at the numbers

I don't care if the paper endorsed shrub or not. The stats (1 machine per 117 voters) are correct. It's time to end this conspiracy crap. It makes us look like fools.

[RaulVB]

7. Distorted stats, lack of context

Your post has the same "qualities", though!

[tritsofme]

6. What am I distorting?

I posted an article and nothing more.

[RaulVB]

10. Even you may get this:

IF THEY ARE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED, THAT MEANS THAT THE COUNTIES WHERE THE MACHINES WERE NEEDED THE MOST RECEIVED LESS MACHINES!

Get it?

And the OHIO SOS had 90 machines LOCKED UP IN A WAREHOUSE.

Ok guy, the lines "were not there..."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

18. hey Raul....

Has any one checked to see if the number of machines allocated was the same as the number of machines actually there? Surely I'm not getting paranoid and thinking like a Repug! eeewwhh! What if they can 'Prove" there were enough machines on paper, but reality differs? (imagine that! :eyes: ) Somebody has to have the pre-nov. 2nd. allocation numbers saved on their hard drive... who knows what the official records say now..

am i getting paranoid?

[RaulVB]

21. No, you're not

I don't know is these "claims" can be compared with the actual usage of machines or if ALL THE POLLING PLACES keep a written record of this use, I mean the numbers of machines operating in every place.

Good question!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. at least we have video...

of a few polling places on election day. Who knows how many hundreds of hours worth!
;-)

[garybeck]

34. supposedly michael moore asked everyone to video election day

He must have a ton of footage

[Carolab]

31. Jeez. All you have to do is watch the footage of the precinct in VTV.

Video the Vote documents PLAINLY that there were TWO machines for over 1600 voters, and that it would have taken 30 HOURS for everyone in line to vote. The SOS KNEW about the increased registrations and instead of providing an adequate number of machines, HELD MACHINES BACK EVEN WHEN CALLS FOR MORE WERE PLACED.

Someone got a link to VTV to send to the Plain Dealer? I think they need to see that.

On edit: I sent the link.

http://www.metroblogging.com/videothevote/

What a LIAR.

[TruthIsAll]

16. It has been clear for a long time. Always defending the Whore Media.

His agenda is his wallet.

That much is clear.

[electropop]

44. The fine print in the article

More than halfway down, they admit this applies to just one single county, which was not one of the ones suspected of that scheme. They didn't look at any other counties at all, though their headline implies it. The casual reader will be completely deceived.

[mordarlar]

3. Quite clear! As a matter of fact my own polling station had fewer machines

than in all previous elections with registration up.

[Time for change]

8. The Conyers Committee report indicates

that there was tremendous disparity between precincts in the number of machines per voter, with urban, Democratic, and minority precincts having far fewer.

So the Plain Dealer analysis shows that the difference between 8 hour lines and 5 minute lines was simply "overwhelmed poll workers" and the result of "timing" and "new voters" (which should have been predicted by the way, on the basis of the huge increases in Democratic registration in many areas). Do you believe that?

[RaulVB]

11. Don't you know that's the "truth"? (n/t)

[KittyWampus]

24. Analogy- If George Soros Enters Room- Average Wealth Goes Up

[seabeyond]

9. so the democrats had massive turnout and repugs had low

turnout. and bush won. wow, that one makes sense

[papau]

12. But the lack of logic is not proof of vote fraud - nor is a stat analysis

Indeed nothing is proof of fraud, since any arrested person for doing vote fraud was an isolated incident.

I do love our "not owned by the right wing GOP, they just act like they are" - mass media.

[RaulVB]

13. That "rationale" is "unquestionable", isn't? (n/t)

[seabeyond]

14. lol you two, i know. i sit in amazement n/t

[papau]

15. what does assertion "Voting machines distributed evenly" mean?

number of votes per machine low at Dem polling areas that had long lines could and does mean poll workers/system suppressed Dem vote.

It does not prove fairness of anything.

[rumpel]

17. Wasn't this the paper, which articles all repubs used to "prove" there was

no fraud? During the contest Jan 6, that is.

[MeDeMax]

19. sorry PD is not credible...

they have been publishing explanation after explanation practically since Nov 3rd...but the facts on the ground differ.

Plain and simple:

-Q. how many 'pub counties/precincts suffered from these maladies ?

-A. NONE !

-Q. how many dem ?

-A. Several ! that had the population #s to change the outcome !

[EC]

20. Yes, on paper

they did distribute them properly, but in actuality on the ground, they withheld machines until the last minute, or delivered machines known not to work, while holding back good machines...I'm working on going through some of the calls to the hotline now and this is what seems to have happened...Everything is always perfect on Paper....

[Viva_La_Revolution]

23. see #22 above... we have some video, right? :)

have you been able to compare them to the records?

[F.Gordon]

25. I'm not a fraud advocate, but........

Despite charges that election officials failed to properly prepare for Election Day, it appears those in Cuyahoga County tried. In deciding how to distribute machines, the board used a liberal formula that included not only active voters but also inactive voters - those who had not shown up to the polls in years.

In Franklin County, which had some of the longest lines in Ohio on Election Day, officials distributed machines using a ratio based only on active voters.

While I'd love to see national standards for national elections, at the very least, there should be State Standards that apply to every county in any election. Ohio is/was one fucked up state and the chief fuckup should be held accountable. Distribution of machines should be set at the State level, not the county level. It should also be designated by the State Legislature, not the SOS.

And this doesn't "sound right" to me. This would mean that the SOE would communicate with the SOS to allocate voting machines. Did the SOS tell the SOE or was it the other way around. I simply don't have the time to follow this anymore. So many questions.....

[NationalEnquirer]

40. I'm not big on fraud either..

But man, SOMETHING has got to be done.
I hadn't realized what a mess that the voting process was until 2000.
I'll bet most states have these problems, its just that nobody notices until the results are so close.

[AndrewClarke]

26. I thought that the issue with the machines . . .

. . . was not that they were distributed unevenly within Cuyahoga County (and other counties), but that they were distributed unevenly by the state from one county to another. I could be remembering it wrong, but I thought that was the problem.

[qwghlmian]

28. AFAIR, each county in Ohio is responsible

for buying and distributing its own machines, so there cannot be such a thing as "distribution of machines unevenly by the state from one county to another".

[RaulVB]

30. Oh, I'm "surprised!"

You're not repeating talking points, are you?

No, "not you"!

[qwghlmian]

33. See post #32 -

apparently I was correct. Why am I not surprised that you hate to find out the truth when it contradicts your preconceptions?

[F.Gordon]

32. Okay, I "wasted some time" looking into this....

Ohio Revised Code 3506.12

{A) May combine, rearrange, and enlarge precincts; but the board shall arrange for a sufficient number of these devices to accommodate the number of electors in each precinct as determined by the number of votes cast in that precinct at the most recent election for the office of governor, taking into consideration the size and location of each selected polling place, available parking, handicap accessibility and other accessibility to the polling place, and the number of candidates and issues to be voted on. Notwithstanding section 3501.22 of the Revised Code, the board may appoint more than four precinct officers to each precinct if this is made necessary by the number of voting machines to be used in that precinct.

I can't find an Ohio code that dictates how a County can determine the number of machines other than "arrange for a sufficient number of these devices to accommodate the number of electors in each precinct as determined by the number of votes cast in that precinct at the most recent election for the office of governor".

So the State says you don't have to consider inactive voters. If I'm reading this correctly. Still a fucked up system. IMHO.

[mgr]

45. I don't think you have it quite right

The county can purchase machines only if it has money. Where the money comes for the upgrade and expansion is probably from the state, through the federal government. If there is an improper allocation of the monies, the responsibility rests with the higher levels, if the BOE had its request in on time, and properly written.

Mike

[F.Gordon]

29. That was my understanding

they were distributed unevenly by the state from one county to another.

This article implies that it was the County that made these decisions and I've always understood that it was the state that determined this. More specifically: Dr. Frankenwell. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

27. Yeah right. And I'm the Queen of England.

Interesting how these questions just won't seem to go away.

[ISUGRADIA]

35. What about poll workers???

You can have machines evenly distributed but let's say you have the same number of election staff at two sites: one has 1000 voters one has 500 voters. A backlog from the checking process is going to cause lines, long lines. Was there a proper distibution of poll workers? Another way to screw certain types of voters.

[skids]

36. Why Cuyahoga.

We never made any claims that machines were shorted in Cuyahoga, as far as I know. That was Franklin county. So why all this fuss about Cuyahoga? Not that, as has been mentioned, the issue there has been thoroughly investigated WRT broken machines and delivery times.

This is very non-sequitur.

Info on Franklin. (Many of you have seen this already.)

http://uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=43

[marions ghost]

37. More on Cayuhoga

GO TO:
http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm

Check out the map there.

There may not have been a "scheme" but the situation existed for scheming individuals to operate. :evilfrown:

Whatever investigations find about what and how, it's obvious that there was a disastrous screw-up and voters in Dem-leaning precincts were subject to unreasonable hardship and intimidation.

[ClintCooper2003]

38. I don't think Cleveland was mentioned that much. It was Columbus and...

other areas.

[teddyk23]

39. a few questions

(a) at what point were the number of "registered voters" ascertained? The registration deadline in Ohio is 30 days before the general election. Did they account for the new voter registration drives by ACT and others which may not have been completed and had forms turned in until the deadline? And what is the relationship between the people who were registered but were told they were not on the voting rolls, that is to say, was the number of registered voters artificially lowered in some areas?

(b) "the busiest precincts - when measured by the number of ballots cast per machine" were in the suburbs? That is a measure of how many people actually got to the machines, not how many people stood in line and gave up or were turned away because of registration problems, or the precinct shuffle.

(c) "The analysis does not include the more than 200 machines that the board distributed across the county on Election Day to replace broken machines or supplement precincts with higher-than-expected turnout." Why can't the reporter tell us where they went (the 200 machines), the suburbs or the cities? Officials holding back machines in the city and giving out extras in the suburbs makes a difference.

(d) Even if the entire analysis in the article is true, it rests of the fallacy that if you treat suburban and city voters the same, the same number of polling places the same number of workers (which the article glaringly does not say was the case), that is not discriminatory. As anyone who has voted in both a city and suburban area can tell you, the principal diffference between city voters and suburbanites is FLEXIBILITY. City voters, particularly those in poorer communities, tend to have jobs where working hours are more tightly enforced and, therefore, voting must be done on a tight timetable. This is also the case with childcare options. Suburban voters tend to be wealthier, better able to set their own hours, and have greater access to childcare.

You can't treat them the same. Remember that a violation of the Voting Rights Act does not require discriminatory intent (a "scheme"), but instead a discriminatory impact. Treating two areas "the same," without accounting for their differences, remains an obvious problem.

[skids]

46. All good questions.

Like you I wonder if a) was before or after the late purging of the voter registration rolls.

And b) just means that when a machine is running at full steam, in those few suburbian precincts where the number of machines was borderline, better trained/educated poll workers and a lack of republican challengers slowing down the lines tend to speed things up a bit.

And finally d) hits the nail right on the head. People from minority areas were actually fired for waiting in line to vote this year, whereas the suburbians at worst had to call in a few hours of personal leave time.

[Land Shark]

41. It's worse than that....

On election day, the situation is always "perfect" because either there is "no evidence" of anything wrong, or else problems were "caught and corrected". So, it's logically impossible for there to be a problem, can't we all see this?

Then after the election, there's either "no evidence" or else it's an "isolated incident" and "not enough to change the result". So, it's never really a problem, can't we all see this?

But, it's always the TOTALITY of the facts that proves a fraud, each individual fact will always have a colorable counter-argument. Think of your favorite guilty criminal: their attorneys have arguments and explanations for all of the facts individually, but collectively the jury decides on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's a real case here on election fraud, and those who think there isn't are either (1) Not cognizant of the totality of the facts or (2) quite cognizant of how difficult it is to get enough OTHER people aware of the totality of the facts that the truth (or the genuineness of this debate) can become well known.

Given a captured audience also known as a jury, fraud can often be proved. The real question is can it be proved and can there be a real democratic discussion in our country when the information firehose we are "sipping" from changes focus every 30 seconds.

Land Shark
Business and Consumer Fraud Attorney

[tex-wyo-dem]

43. This issue can be proved...

you just have to get the data, which is the hard part.

Per precinct...
x = number of registered (including newly registered) voters
y = number of machines allocated per x
supported by t = average time voters had to wait in line and n = average number of people in line over the course of Nov. 2.

Compare ratios of x/y for each precinct and do some statistical analysis and voila...proof.

[marions ghost]

47. you make a good case, landshark

can you write a book on this? You speak so clearly for the layperson trying to assess the extent of election fraud (with no help from the media). Thanks for your input on the legal questions.

My experience is:

1. Many people assume that we live in an ethical society where there are always remedies to serious grievances--so therefore if it's not being remedied, there must be no problem. I believe this is a widespread delusion. As you know, consumer fraud is rampant, so why is it SO hard for people to even imagine election fraud?

2. Others who DO see the potential for fraud often argue that nothing can be done legally. This seems like an attitude of helplessness in the face of suppression. I would like to know what is the realistic hope through the legal system? The Justice Department is a dead end. Still you seem to say it's worth a try, and I'm sure to really answer the question would take more than you can put forth in a discussion forum.

Hope you can write this definitive book soon. It's an emergency. There are shell-shocked voters who need to understand where some solutions might be found.

[mgr]

42. Intent is beside the point

If the mis allocation of machines resulted in any disproportionate disenfranchisment of any minority, it is a violotion of the Civil Rights Act, regardless of intent. I believe this has been demonstrated already by jmknapp.

Mike

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. Was that 1 per every 117 (Republican) voters?

The thing is, the voting machines were one part of the election fraud issue. Voter suppression tactics were also in play.

[L. Coyote]

49. The focus in Cuyahoga should be on other problems. Article misses...

the problems, or chooses to focus on an area without problems.

One of the most obvious problems is the counting machinery performance. How well were the votes counted? Check out this graph showing how the highest percentages of non-votes correlates with Kerry precincts.


Precincts were sorted by percentage of non-votes. Those in this graph have over 3.6% non-votes. (The county mean is 1.804 percent.)

Counting machines should be the focus, not voting machines. Was the performance of counting machines equitably distributed? There are several causes of spoilage (high non-vote rates). Machinery is one. Why do ALL the precincts with over 3.6% non-votes have less than 50% Bush support and a mean of only 10.25% Bush support?

In this election, another cause of high non-vote rates is cross-voting. Why did 7/8ths of the polling locations have multiple ballot orders? Why did only 40 of the 1292 precincts at locations with multiple precincts have a single ballot order?

Why, at the locations with 2 precincts and 2 ballot orders, is there a non-random distribution of the ballot order combinations. For some reason, the subset where major candidate votes can be switched is two-thirds larger, 220 precincts to 130. This should be random! And why is this subset of precincts (24.4% of votes) arranged to have over 70% Kerry support. Why does it have 30% of the non-votes, 33% of the Badnarik votes, and 46% of the Peroutka votes?

Why is the percentage of non-votes correlated to Kerry support? Check this graph for the locations with 2 ballot orders and 2 precincts, showing that the distribution of non-votes is not random:


Precincts were sorted by Kerry support, then percent of non-votes was determined for each subset.

Ask these question in your letters to the editor? There are plenty of problem areas in Cuyahoga to focus on.

Read on online about how Kerry votes were switched to Bush votes in Cuyahoga County.

Download a statistical summary of the Cuyahoga voting.

Edit to add graph explanations.