Could this be what happened with the 3893? Feedback Pls

[IAMREALITY]

I think the coding example flying around is a great breakdown and I give the author a ton of credit, but I really don't think the coding would've ever been done in such a way that would be so easily breakable or decipherable, and especially noticeable upon reading. They must've been far more tricker. I've been starting to give it some thought, and this is where I am leaning.....

I first want to say I do a lot of data analysis and problem solving for a living. One of the things that makes me so good at what I do is my uncanny ability to sniff out logical deduction as theory, and then end up amazed that the facts fall into place afterwards. Remember the core basis of problem solving. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and that holds up more then you can realize.

So let's use that theory for this election. We are all theorizing that this election was stolen, and most likely so with padded votes. We have all seen the articles on how easy evoting machines are to hack, and that even the central tabulators for op scan can be hacked. So using the most simplistic theory logic, someone would have to hack in and add votes to Bushies total. We also know it would've been a huge undertaking, and required quite a few hackers across the US to pull it off state by state. I think the most logical thing that happened is that one hacker, though he did many other precincts correctly, had an oops on one. Say there was a predetermined number of votes that were supposed to be added, but only to certain precincts. He had an oops, and added that total to the wrong precinct, a precinct where there weren't enough voters for the number to fly. Voila, you have your error.

Think about it, for this to have been pulled off you would have to have a bunch of hackers hacking a ton of precincts/counties, etc. They would've had to have had predetermined guidelines, and known exactly what they were doing. The 3893 number was probably a fixed number added to several areas within a population margin in the US. More than likely in my opinion, that 3893 was given a green light in a county that it wasn't supposed to have been green lighted in. With as many hacks as this election would've required, the most logical situation is that one of them had an oops.

Oh, I also have a second theory along those lines. Certain machines had a number of votes pre-recorded. One of them was accidentally brought to the Franklin County Precinct with the error, but was intended to go elsewhere with a greater population. Another Oops.

[flowomo]

1. "The simplest explanation is usually the correct one...

and that holds up more then (sic) you can realize."

Oddly enough, I am inclined to accept that rule and apply it to the election. The simplest explanation for the outcome is that more people voted for Bush than for Kerry. I know that's heresy around here these days, but I don't see why it's impossible, or even unlikely.

[IAMREALITY]

3. Ahhhhhh Touche

Yes, I guess ultimately the fact no fraud took place at all is probably the most simplistic explanation (though none of us buy it), so take what I said as meaning the simplest explanation if fraud DID take place.

[Eloriel]

23. Touche my foot -- he's absolutely all wet!!

And exposes himself as -- well, nevermind.

His argument: The simplest explanation for the outcome is that more people voted for Bush than for Kerry.

Well, no. Not in this case. Bush got EXTRA votes -- more votes than there were voters. See this thread:

The 3893 extra Bush votes in one Ohio Precinct--by WhiteKnight1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x48519

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: 4258
Votes for Kerry: 260
Total number of voters: 638

It also says that Bush "actually received 365 votes". That means there must have been 13 votes for other candidates (638-260-365 = 13).


Got it? Bush was credited with 3,893 votes than he got, 3,880 more votes than he COULD have gotten if EVERYONE voted for Bush.

[IAMREALITY]

24. Whoa, Hold up there

He didn't mean that Bush really got that many, he meant nationwide, and that this simply, was just an error, which happens.

I also am on your side, I am 100% convinced fraud took place, and explained below that I kinda just agreed as a concession to put the focus back on the theory of how the Fraud took place.

[liam97]

7. It is simple and possible

that more people votes for Bush but the problem is that there is substantive evidence which seems to indicate that it did not happen. So we cannot accept it as an explanation without a complete audit and investigation that confirms that most people voted for Bush. Four things occurred which call the legitimacy of the election into question:

1. widespread repression, intimidation and disenfranchisement especially in minority communities (as testified today by citizens of Ohio; and on footage circulated by Moore)
2. machine malfunction which seem to have resulted primarily in skews in only one direction (32,000+ cases so far compiled)
3. security breaches (as documented onn BBV site)
4. miscounting, spoilage, sudden change of rules (Palast; Fritakis; et al.

[flowomo]

9. I'd be interested in a link to that "+32,000+ cases" citation --

I hadn't seen that number before.

[liam97]

15. Here is the link to the 32K+

http://verifiedvoting.org/

[flowomo]

21. thank you.... I'm trying to keep track of these sites....

but there are so many! Checked the one you mention and that 32,000+ is a bit misleading. I just picked one at random (the first state Alabama, the first county Autaga) and this is what it says:

048901 11/02/04, 5:25 PM PST Registration-related problem Pratville, Autaga County, Alabama Husband is registered voter and voted in 2000 at old polling place. Moved 8 years ago. He is trying to vote at old place, where he lived 8 years ago. Has not registered in current county.



Now, what the heck does that mean? And how many of the 32K are like this?

[Rumba]

13. efraud versus "traditional methods"

> It is simple and possible that more people
> votes for Bush but the problem is that there
> is substantive evidence which seems to indicate
> that it did not happen.
>
> 1. widespread repression, intimidation and
> disenfranchisement especially in minority
> communities (as testified today by citizens
> of Ohio; and on footage circulated by Moore)

Although the documented incidents of this kind of thing are deplorable, and as far as I can see were mostly the practice of besmuglicans, to the degree they were successful they would have indeed diminished the Kerry vote and led to more people voting for shrub. Your points 2-3 are at the heart of the question of electronic voting fraud, but this one is just good (err, bad) old-fashioned dirty tricks.

[shelley806]

2. 3893? Is this another example of a constant number being added

...I've missed something.

[bleever]

4. The problem is, more real votes for B* is NOT the simplest ex-

planation, given the countervailing factors. For You-Know-Who's sake, Jimmy Breslin, Hunter S. Thompson, and John Zogby all knew in their bones which way this election was going! That's a hell of a Three Musketeer's Bar.

[flowomo]

8. Zogby sort of admits he was wrong about that::

Zogby had Bush ahead in his final poll, but:
"In a last-ditch effort for bragging rights, John Zogby called the election for Kerry at 5 p.m. before polls closed on Election Day, announcing on his Web site that the Demo- cratic nominee would win 311 electoral votes.

That call even went against Zogby's final poll, which showed Bush narrowly winning the popular vote — and left the pollster with his tail between his legs.

"I thought we captured a trend, but apparently that result didn't materialize," Zogby wrote on his Web site yesterday."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11042004/news/nationalnews/33357.htm

[For PaisAn]

5. Both of your theories are credible

Either could explain how this happened. Oops. Let's hope we find out the truth whatever it may be.

[NJ_Lib]

6. I'm not sure why you agree that...

... the simplest explanation is Chimpy just got more votes...

In order for that explanation to fit, you would also have to have a perfectly reasonable, logical and physically possible even probable, explanation for all of the errors... And there are many... Are you saying the simplest explanation for these errors are that they all happened, without assistance from a human being, all on the same day, in the same twelve hour period...???

Is that really the simplest, most LOGICAL explanation for all of this?

[IAMREALITY]

10. I don't really agree

I was obviously offering a concession with a hope that the focus could just remain on the simplest theory for that the fraud DID take place. I would ask that you actually respond to the theories, and see if in some of the data we have we can see if we can find a 3893 vote trend across different states that would logically fit....

[flowomo]

11. the number of proven "errors" is really quite small.....

insofar as we are talking about "errors" that were large enough to alter the outcome. The rest are varying degrees of suspiciousness that are yet to be clarified -- and hopefully, the recounts will verify them. But that's far from a lock.

[flowomo]

12. I have no idea whether this aids in your analysis, but here is a case

to consider:

(snip)
"Sometimes the problem is that votes were miscounted. That's what happened, officials say, with precinct-by-precinct results posted on the Orange County (FLA) elections office Web site showing that Democrat John Kerry beat Republican President Bush by 9,227 votes in Orange.

That was off by 8,400 votes. Officials working for Bill Cowles, the Orange elections supervisor, said the correct totals, available elsewhere on the site, showed that Kerry bested Bush in the county by only 827 votes.

The cause of the error, Orange officials said Thursday, was a software program that could not tabulate more than 32,767 votes in a single precinct. On election night, officials anticipated the problem and adjusted for it, deputy election official Lonn Fluke said Thursday.

But the next day, workers failed to account for the glitch while posting precinct results online. When absentee-ballot totals exceeded the limit in one precinct, the software caused additional votes to be subtracted from Bush's total."

(snip)

The snip is from the Orlando Sentinel, as posted by VotersUnite! here: http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=3803

[BeFree]

17. Ah yes the simplest way is exposed

A software 'error'. "... the software caused additional votes to be subtracted..."

The one commonality amongst all the e-voting machines is that they all use software to count the votes. Knowing that there are just four big companies writing the software, and that that software is a top secret, you simply have to conclude it's the software, stupid!

One programmer, shared amongst the four companies, writing code to count the vote as needed, is the very simplest of explanations. Thanks!

[IAMREALITY]

20. But if that were truly the case

The errors would've been more consistent across other areas. A bug would be present in each mahine using the software. That is why I ruled out a buried bug as a theory. I think the coding part was to create backdoor entries, but the error part was the person sneaking through the back door.

[sandnsea]

26. software posting online

So please explain how the Cuyahoga County excuse for more votes for Bush is now a "typo". Votes aren't typed online manually, they're uploaded. The lame and twisting explanations for all these "glitches" sound more like CYA than fact. The most logical conclusion is that the people in these counties have no idea of why their machines really failed, and a further logical conclusion is that there's more than a few privately saying they have no idea what the election results really were.

[peacetalksforall]

14. My simplest theory is that they had accomplices arranged in advance

with SoS's and/or below that level, but didn't know where they would need them. They just whittled away to get the states they needed. They had the networks put a hold on calling those states long enough for their number crunchers to calculate what was needed based on their own algorithms of priority by precincts where they could cover up, plus demographics that would facilitate their explanations for the miracle. I believe they didn't even have to rely on plants of code in election machines because the machines were audit protected (inferior and crime prone). They had a playground that allowed them to make up any figures they wanted. They could not have done it without the networks. Their code and algorithms didn't quite work perfectly, but after all they were under a lot of pressure and they worked well enough for gullible people.

But, I may be all wet because I don't understand optical scanners because I didn't read up on them because everyone said they were safe, but now we know, they mattered.

[Celebration]

16. well

If it was optical scanners won't we get an indication of this in NH? If the precincts in NH are off, people will start to take notice. I am about 75-25 in favor of the fraud theory (personally speaking). I just feel that the White House felt that losing was not an option. Hopefully this scenario is right-- once the election was slipping away, they went into the high risk mode-- win at all costs, to the extent that there was a risk of being caught. I don't know much about computer programming, but it probably had to do with a prearranged plan with not all that many people knowing about it. At that point the strategy was to win so big there were no recounts. On the other hand maybe it *was* on the up and up. But, I doubt it.

[JMDEM]

19. Who said there were hackers?

Who said there were hackers that altered votes? Why not just people with passwords to the databases where the votes were stored?

[IAMREALITY]

22. Too risky to be on Site n/t

[IAMREALITY]

18. Want To ADD

The reason I am Posting this is because I don't think the Franklin County error has gotten the attention it deserves. Yes, we have paid attention to it as an outcry, but not as a source of investigative priority. This error could be a goldmine. It in itself may be the best fraud proof we have out there right now. If this was a fraud attempt that ended in manipulative error, then I know we DU'rs can put our heads together to analyze that precinct and figure out HOW DID THEY MESS UP, WHAT WENT WRONG. If we are to solve this election enigma we have to piece it together. We need to think from their eyes. What were they trying to do? What error could've made their attempt go wrong to give 3893 extra votes in the mistabulation? That is why I posted this. To not lose sight that this one error in itself could be the foundation of the puzzle of which other pieces start growing from...

[anamandujano]

25. I posted this on WhiteKnight's thread, then read this thread

May I say that great minds work alike?

anamandujano (758 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov-13-04 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
--------
29. just some dumb layman's questions
Edited on Sat Nov-13-04 11:00 PM by anamandujano
--------
the 4000 (3893?) extra Bush votes--was this in keeping with the 5% gain that he had in other suspect states? Is is possible that it was not a program but a manual pad?

They decided they wanted 3-5 million win of the popular vote, they padded everywhere they could, especially in the swing states. The only reason this was caught is because there were more votes than voters, because of the smallness of the county. In the larger counties, the padding was not evident because the vote talley was not bigger than the number of voters. Possibly just a lazy padder?

edit to add--Are there a lot of small counties like this one?

[LisaL]

27. Sorry, that would be too obvious.

Because they would end up with more votes than voters. Doesn't matter how big the precinct is, it's still not good to end up with more votes than voters.

[magellan]

28. I'm not very good with numbers

But I do have a question and wonder if it's been raised here yet: have any of the mistabulations gone in Kerry's favor? I mean, I haven't noticed any reports of huge numbers of erroneous votes being given to Kerry. Just like there weren't any last minute, unpredicted swings in Kerry's favor on election night. The bad tabulations and exit poll defying swings all seem to favor **.

That in itself may say something.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. That is a fair point

I haven't seen any logical rational analysis of why the late breaks would ALL be for Bush everywhere.