Irrefutable evidence: Ohio election rigged

[ima_sinnic]

from ledge of liberty.com:



To believe Bush won Ohio, you would have to believe that perfectly good Democrats turned Republican. Almost two-hundred-thousand Democrats gone bad—it just isn’t feasible. These numbers don’t add up to a legitimate election. Period.

For days I’ve been poring over Excel sheets trying to figure out what happened in Ohio. . . . What I’ve done is taken the data from the previous 4 elections <1988–2000>, added up the vote tallies per County/Party, divided those results by 4 which gives me an average of votes per County/Party for all 4 elections <2 Republican terms and 2 Democrat terms>. Then, I took the total average votes per County/Party and divided that by the total average votes per County. This gave me the likely voter percentile. From here, I can project the votes for each 2004 candidate by taking the total number of actual votes cast, in the 2004 election, and multiplying it by the likely voter percentile. Doesn’t sound too complicated, does it? Well, when you’re dealing with millions of votes and 2 decades of elections, it doesn’t surprise me that no one else went through the trouble.

The final step is to reveal the percent of change between the actual votes recorded in the 2004 election and the historical trends of voters in each County. . . .

These are not small percentages of change either; they are quite significant—huge—more than enough to sway the election in favor of John Kerry. The numbers just don’t lie, statistically; George Bush could not have won this election. . . .

http://www.ledgeofliberty.com/2004/11/irrefutable_evi.html

also includes a link to his Excel file of raw data and calculations

[EST]

1. Unfortunately-not irrefutable.

Strong, logical, presentable, clear, powerful, in fact- to any reasonable judge-totally sufficient to declare the election null and void-eaten up with fraud-but not irrefutable. (sigh)

[bullimiami]

58. the irrefutable part will come if we get to hand audit the paper ballots

in the counties where they are available.

[EST]

73. I'm with you!

Onward!

[JD Lau]

78. and what is the possibility of THAT happening?

hand auditing the paper ballots.

Who would "we" be? Those the Glibs(to use Olbermann's term) would employ? Will this be in our lifetime?

[jsamuel]

2. Where are all the other counties?

Not to be dismissive, but were they cut out because they didn't follow the same trend? If so, this would be something that would be easily debunked like the dang dixiecrate crap all over any news coverage we do get.

[neonplaque]

4. Download the spreadsheet.

[alphafemale]

6. Those would be some of the historically strong BLUE counties I believe.

OH is a mix. Including traditionally Red, or the swings wouldn't tell you as much as these traditional BLUE states going for * in such a seismic shift.

[Carolab]

8. You have to click on the link

and download the whole report for all the counties.

[ima_sinnic]

10. look at the spreadsheet--in 72/88 counties % chg was neg for Dems

and in only 18 counties it was neg among Reps. In 82% of counties, basically, there was a percent change in traditional voting patterns that favored Bush. Looks pretty fraudulent to me.
I just opened the spreadsheet in Excel, then "saved as" a different name. This breaks it out of "read only" mode. Then I sorted by Democrat % change.

[orthogonal]

3. New registrants

Speaking as someone who was at the Kerry-Edwards Coordinated Campaign HQ in Ohio, and as someone who while there worked closely with the numbers, I'd suggest looking at new voter registrations in those counties (say, from January forward), and at non-new registrants who voted in this election but not in the 2000 General Election.

The data (on both registrations and voting history) can be obtained from the individual counties' Boards of Election.

[nodictators]

44. Just this morning I couldn't find anything on the Auglaize Co web site

Warren County does have its recount results up. No big changes are ostensible.

http://www.co.warren.oh.us/bdelec/voting_results_publish_dynamic.htm

[Carl Brennan]

5. Great work. Just a suggestion

Test the model on non-critical/non-battleground states.

[neonplaque]

7. Not "Irrefutable"

There is simply not enough data to work with here in this spreadsheet.

If you based assumptions/predictions only on the "trend lines" of past election (for ALL counties, not just the ones highlighted), the Bush still wins by a similar margin.

[ima_sinnic]

9. there is plenty to work with

in the Excel spreadsheet he has a column for type of voting machine in each county, and also vendor.
A simple analysis of variance with voting type as a fixed factor would show if it has any correlation with % change by party.

[DELUSIONAL]

11. Each piece of evidence is cumulative -- that is they need to be

taken together -- to get the whole picture of what happened. The evidence contained in this spread sheet can be checked by other accountants/statisticians against public records (which is where the author of this spread sheet got the information in the first place. This is called building a case for fraud. Download the spread sheet -- and save to your hard drive. What we are seeing are the bits and pieces which are adding up to a very strong case for fraud -- and it will take thousands of man/woman hours to make the case for fraud.

I don't know why some people here are so ready to dismiss the enormous efforts of others to ferret out the fraud. We are seeing just pieces of the whole puzzle. Accept this work for what it is -- and don't slam it until you have downloaded and reviewed the numbers.

This is also a different mathematical approach than others have used in to examine the data --and it can be used in other swing states to determine how the votes were manipulated and IF there was in fact vote fraud in other states.

What we seeing emerge is a pattern of vote manipulation -- the corruption in this election appears to be widespread. We are seeing similar vote total manipulation emerge in Florida.

Here's a good article from Zogby's website:

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10385
Votergate 2004; We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.

Since last Tuesday there has been a justifiable uproar about the major differences between the exit polls in Ohio and Florida and the actual results. Democrats and Republicans, who both saw the same exit polls that showed an electoral landslide in favor of Kerry, have confirmed this. Investigative reporter Bob Parry confirmed from his sources that the Bush campaign was convinced they were going to lose. George H. W. Bush also confirmed this in an interview with The Today Show. So why have the exit polls been so wrong in the last two elections? It is clear that there must have been manipulation in the voting machines. While there's been a lot of talk of problems with not having paper trails, computer fraud is uncovered most of the time without paper trails.

As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it's easy to create a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that.

Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud. With the votergate 2004 it's a numbers game just like it is with corporate accounting, even easier. All you're talking about is one number-- total votes for each candidate.

There's a huge difference between polling what WILL happen and polling something that has already happened. The reliability of polling something that has already happened is highly reliable vs. predictive polls, like Gallup or Zogby, which is very risky. The reliability can be, not plus or minus 4 percent as we see with predictive polls, but rather a much more reliable plus or minus one half or one tenth of one percent with exit polls, because those are based on asking people
who already voted. I would even say that if the exit polling were done in the key precincts of Florida and Ohio, which it was, then these results should be practically “bullet proof.”

[robicat]

12. I just compared the results from 2000-2004

I think this analysis is woolly. Nothing jumps out from this analysis. Averaging 1988 - 2000 as the trend is arbitrary and methodologically gives the result.

Looking at 2000- 2004 Both sides increased their vote in most counties. Nothing is proved and the voter suppression effect doesn't even highlight.

An analysis of early voting vs polling day vs exit polls is the most convincing argument we have thus far.

[pointsoflight]

15. What do you mean?

The poster explained exactly why they averaged over 1988-2000, and it makes complete sense. As they describe, they're establishing the trend over several past elections in which both republicans and democrats have won. One could make a strong case that this is much better than looking at just one past election.

Also, looking at just 2000 does not give you a "trend" for comparison. A *trend* requires a minimum of two data points, preferably more.

[robicat]

69. What I am saying....

is that the trend is for republican to be increasing toward the 1988 figures

ie Cuyhoga County

Year Dem Rep

2004 433 215
2000 359 192
1996 341 163
1992 337 187
1988 353 242

I can see no proof here of fraud. It can be explained as the republicans rebuilding their vote after the 1992 collapse.The comparison between pre-polling day polling day votes and polling day votes is the most compelling argument because it verifies the exit poll weirdness.


That said I think there has been clearly shenanigans in this election. I have been following the bbv thing for twelve months from down under, and figures like re-constructionists like Ahmanson and his links with the Iran Contras dirty tricks crew speaks volumes to me.
This sort of analysis based on averaging numbers proves nothing, and will only undermine the argument. An average does not speak to a trend. Period. Maybe as an aussie I can see a bit more clearly as I am not quite as wrapped up emotionally. If you start accepting any argument that gives the result you are looking for you are shot. What we are looking for is compelling arguments, and this is far from compelling.

The reality is that it was that dirty tricks suppressed a lot of Democrat voters, that Rove had a massive GOTV based around white middle class evangelical churches, and there is a possibility/probability (you chose) that has not yet been evidenced of vote piracy.

I suggest that someone gets into these places with a statistically valid survey and do some bullet proof election polling, and continue pressuring for 1/ a recount and 2/ a software audit of the machines.
Rather than wasting time with arguments that are set up to prove what we want to believe.

Get your critical thinking into gear because there is a lot at stake and running woolly arguments just gives the other side stuff to ridicule.

[ima_sinnic]

13. blogger/researcher's title has changed: Statistical evidence

http://www.ledgeofliberty.com/2004/11/irrefutable_evi.html

because of "some controversy over at the daily kos regarding the title of this story. . . . i want people to download the data i've put together and i don't want a silly thing like a title to stop them. so...r.i.p. "irrefutable evidence" and hello "statistical evidence". (though i still think it's irrefutable, so there :P )"

[IAMREALITY]

14. PLEASE READ

ir·ref·u·ta·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rfy-t-bl, r-fy-)
adj.
Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible: irrefutable arguments; irrefutable evidence of guilt

[pointsoflight]

16. Yes, this is not irrefutable evidence.

It's a very nice analysis and might even been called "compelling" evidence, but can't say irrefutable. Irrefutable evidence would be something like catching election officials in the act of actually changing votes.

[ima_sinnic]

50. HELLO? does anybody READ BEFORE POSTING??

THE BLOGGER WHO DID THE ANALYSIS AND POSTED THIS ORIGINALLY CHANGED THE TITLE TO "STATISTICAL EVIDENCE."

Sorry to shout but I get the feeling that people don't read before posting. I tried to change the title when I saw it had been changed on his web site but too much time had passed for me to do an edit. I added a post about the title change a long time ago.

And the reason he changed the title is demonstrated very well here: people read the word "irrefutable," say no it's not, and totally shut down further thought.

[mzmolly]

18. What's your point?

Are you implying that the OP didn't know the meaning of the word "irrefutable?"

[IAMREALITY]

19. Ahem

Obviously \Ob"vi*ous-lee\


2. Exposed; subject; open; liable. ``Obvious to dispute.'' --Milton.

3. Easily discovered, seen, or understood; readily perceived by the eye or the intellect; plain; evident; apparent; as, an obvious meaning; an obvious remark.

:)

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[IAMREALITY]

21. OK, Fair Enough

:hi:

:loveya:

edit for "oops, maybe I didn't know what you meant above, thought you were being kind... should've known better lol"

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[IAMREALITY]

24. Excuse Me?

Can you not actually find anything reallllll to post here with all the topics in the forum? You have nothing else to add but some worthless post meant to attack me? Well Bravo to you both.

Fact is, we are in a very tough battle here and let's face it, accuracy counts. When I go into a thread with a title of 'irrefutable' evidence ohio was rigged, well, I kinda get excited. So yes, I am a bit disappointed each time when there is no such 'irrefutable' evidence, but just a bit more soft circumstantial evidence like the rest. We need to term things a little more carefully, that was my only point.

As far as the 'obvious' post, well, that was just for sake of levity and a smile. We could all use a bit of loosening up, and you both are on that list as well.....

[hippiechick]

29. Welcome to DU: you have just met the 'thought police'.

Please make use of your 'ignore' button.

It's the only way to tolerate some of the fanatic schizophrenics around here until we find a way to medicate them.

:hi:


:hippie:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[BamaBecky]

48. Please get the med nurse quick before

some of these folks runoff all the newbies. I'm surprised at all of this. And it really doesn't take much at all to set some of you off.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[IAMREALITY]

30. Why Would I Panic?

Panic? You kidding?? I can barely sleep at night cause I'm crossing my fingers so hard and praying so deep the the results alter the reported winner. Holy crap, all I have done the past two weeks is work my ass off whatever way I can to get this story out to the masses.

So I wonder, Watcha Smokin????????

:eyes:

[merh]

31. .

:boring:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[IAMREALITY]

36. LOL LOL LOL

Comical is right LOL

Do you actually have anything to say with any substance, that would benefit this thread or it's posters at all? Or do you just have your immature games in your deck of cards......Maybeeeee you should spend less time on me and more time actually doing something that matters to this cause. Just a thought.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

39. It's probably all the pot I smoke?

You know us liberals.

I'm not spending much time on you at all, probably ooooh 5 minutes total :shrug:

[IAMREALITY]

42. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:


:crazy: Ummmmm, hello, this is like, so 30 minutes ago. Time to move on missy..... Sheesh

P.S. ima_sinnic, sorry I was the catalyst for them ruining your informative thread......

[ahyums]

47. hang on

look I know I'm going to get ignored because I have have an even lower post count that Iamreality, but seriously, have none of you actually been reading what he/she has been posting recently - it's absolutely obvious that he's fully behind this effort, I think calling him a freeper is absurd. Not only that but he's right unfortunately this is not irrefutable evidence, its pretty strong evidence but at the moment it doesn't prove anything ...I can only hope that the recount will.

[RevCheesehead]

53. Welcome to DU, ahyums!

I think that "IAMREALITY" is bi-polar.

Many of the posts are positive and upbeat, but he/she doesn't handle criticism well (who does?)...and the predictable pattern of response (going back a few days now) has been to inflame emotions, resort to name-calling, and generally stir up trouble.

Sorry, but I'm with Mz Molly on this one.

[IAMREALITY]

65. Ummmmm What now?

What on Earth are you talking about. I post what I post with good reason. My intention has in no way been to inflame emotions, blah blah blah, but to simply state my case and portray my frustration, if I find due cause. An open mind would be helpful here, Mr/Mrs.CheeseHead.

Also, look at all the deleted posts. Doesn't look like I was the one being the trouble maker. You also appear to be quite a hypocrite as well, but hey, to each their own.

[ima_sinnic]

49. PLEASE READ THREAD BEFORE POSTING

just above your post I had posted the information that the original blogger had changed his title to STATISTICAL evidence.
sheesh

[IAMREALITY]

52. For the record

It was in reply to your saying you still think it is irrefutable, and for the record I was just being lighthearted. No Ill Will Intended

[ima_sinnic]

55. it was not *I* who said "I" thought it was still irrefutable

I was quoting the blogger, in his reason for changing the title

[IAMREALITY]

57. You're Absolutely Right

My apologies for the misread.

[bobbyboucher]

66. PLEASE READ!

Stick the caps up your arse. Especially when followed by innacurate representations of the facts.

IF THE PREMISE IS REFUTABLE, THEN REFUTE IT.

Thanks in advance.

[truehawk]

17. Okay Strong Evidence that Ohio was Rigged

[hippiechick]

26. Here is a dumb question:

Do these calculations take population shift into account ?

As more previously suburban or rural areas turn into yuppie cookie cutter subdivisions, one could assume the voting populace would shift(R).

Has there been any evidence to support or refute such a shift ?


:shrug:


:hippie:

[Chili]

35. I live in Cuyahoga County...

...and it holds those very suburbs you may be talking about around the Cleveland area. That's why that county, while very blue, still has a lot of red areas, especially going west and southwest. It's going to be very difficult to use Cuyahoga county as a measuring stick when it comes to trends, because we're all lumped up together, with rich suburbs on the outer edges. But Democrats have always counted on this county in elections. Kerry needed to win CC by at least 200,000 votes, and we exceeded that by 17,638. So we did good... but it would be easy to hide some overvotes in the precincts that are traditionally red in the county.

Example of a red precinct that leapt right to mind: Parma, suburb of Cleveland. Not rich, blue collar, but traditionally solidly Republican.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x1568

[RuleofLaw]

37. Best place for population numbers:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

Sorry, but I don't have time to look through every county.

[petro]

38. population is accounted for...

yeah... because a percentage is applied against the current 2004 voters to get the projected votes. so, population is accounted for.

(p.s. hi everyone! newbi here...)

[EST]

74. Welcome to DU!

It's nice to see so many of the family showing up!

[Chili]

28. that is excellent

I'm an Ohioan, and while I can't vouch for too many counties outside my own (I don't get out much), I do know that Athens county down there in the south, which suddenly went blue this election, is legitimate. My friend's son goes to Ohio University, which is in that county; OU students were ardently pro-Kerry on campus, so much so that Republicans were hardly noticed, and these were some of the students who stood in lines for hours to vote on election day. So if anyone questions that shift, you can add that anecdotal evidence.

[lizzieforkerry]

40. I thought Athens always went blue?

I went there and it is a very liberal campus. All the librals go to OU and the conservatives go to Miami (I'm sure there are exceptions so don't jump all over me). Just wondering if I was wrong.

[Chili]

43. hi Lizzie

...I said that because of the data on the spreadsheet. It says that the Dems gained 5.48% and Republicans lost -8.34%. So I was commenting on the percentage change, and why there was such a turnout for Dems, in case anyone questioned the upswing, especially since there were few counties where Republicans lost ground.

If I were doing a recount, I'd head straight for Franklin, Auglaize, Belmont and Warren counties, where problems were reported - they are among the counties that stand out as big Republican gains, too.

[unpossibles]

41. Ohio calling; lurker no more

I think that anything can be refuted by the Republiclowns. hell, they convinced America that Osama Bin Laden was less important than Saddam, then denied it, yet some people still bought it.

This is great research, although I agree things like population shifts need to be considered. I will say that I have never in all of my years seen such long lines of passionate people fighting to make a change. To see this filled me with pride.

When I saw the exit polls flip-flop, my heart sank and I knew in my heart that something was amiss.

I want to thank all of you here for giving me lots of resources and things to check out and consider. I have been trying very heard to spread the information to others and to encourage them to think about it. I've even been trying to convince the RW friends of mine (all 4 of them....) to look at this not as a sore loss, but as something seriously important - that 31,000+ "anomalies" and conflicts of interest alone are enough to warrant serious inquiry even if they don't signify out-right fraud (which I think they do).

Keep up the good work all and don't give up. I know this has been taxing on all of us, but this may be the most important fight we've taken on.

[txindy]

45. Nice post

Welcome to DU, unpossibles! :hi:

Keep up the great work of getting out the word in Ohio! :toast:

[JD Lau]

77. Very well said. Thank you.

[ryesteve]

46. I don't really see a smoking gun here

I'm glad that this data has been posted, since I've been trying to find county-by-county Ohio data for previous elections. Unfortunately, now that I've had a chance to play with the numbers, I don't yet see anything that looks way out of whack.

First off, it doesn't make sense to look at the Clinton election totals. I would just focus on shifts between 2000 and 2004. If you crunch the numbers, and break it out by voting technology, you'll find the following increases in vote totals:

...................................Kerry...........Bush
E-voting other.............+32.56%......+19.10%
E-voting touchscreen....+17.75%......+18.56%
Optical scan central......+18.59%......+20.01%
Optical scan precinct.....+13.05%......+10.41%
Punch card..................+20.44%......+18.87%

The only number that looks out-of-line is the Kerry increase in the "E-voting other" counties (primarily driven by the results in Franklin). If you want to see fraud in these numbers, you'll have to assume that Franklin should be the benchmark for the entire state, and that the central count optical scan totals were hacked, and there was massive spoilage in Kerry punch card votes. While it's certainly possible that this could have happened, these numbers don't lend further credence to this conjecture.

[petro]

51. You want to compare...

one stolen election to another... LOL

[ryesteve]

59. Stolen?

I knew Florida was stolen in 2000... whoever said Ohio was too?

[bullimiami]

60. in florida i accepted the clinton years 92 and 96

but i added the republican and perot vs the democratic vote.

probably skewed just a little republican but better I think.

im still working on florida.

i will say what I have seen so far is the same. historic trends for 20 years reversed or stopped short this election. either bush is the great republican candidate which his approval rating and exit polls would seem to negate or there has been tampering.

[ryesteve]

63. Don't look at 20 year trends

It doesn't make sense to look at results from 20 years ago. If it did, you'd be saying the Reagan elections were fraudulent because all of those red states were blue in 1960 and 1964. Bush 2000 vs. Bush 2004 is the comparison the makes the most sense.

As for looking at Florida county-by-county totals, here's something you might want to look at: break out the turnout by voting technology and which candidate carried that county in 2000; in counties that used electronic voting that went for Bush in 2000, and counties that used non-electronic voting that went for Bush in 2000, and counties that used non-electronic voting that went for Gore in 2000, the total turnout was up 31-33%. But in the counties that used electronic voting that went for Gore in 2000, the turnout was up only 21%. This makes even less sense when you consider that e-voting would generate less spoilage. So anyone looking for missing votes ought to be looking in those counties first.

[EST]

75. Welcome to DU!

As a matter of fact there exists some very strong evidence for Reagan's theft of the election in 1980, but using an entirely different method, featuring George senior's control of the CIA as the main focus.

[ryesteve]

79. Interesting

That's news to me... I'd be interested in hearing about this evidence.

[EST]

81. I'll try to track it down again, and post a link.

[On the Road]

54. To Have Compelling Evidence,

the county results should be compared against someting other than historical elections. It shows a change, but not what that change is due to. For example, would you say that the election of a Democratic governor in Montana is evidence of fraud?

This gets back to exit polls again, which is one of the few other measures -- maybe the only independent measure -- of the actual vote. Are those results available by county?

[On the Road]

61. Here are Two Different Presentations of the Same Data

In the first, you can see a scattergraph of all Ohio counties and how the percentage of the Democratic vote compared to the average of the previous four presidential elections:



Looks pretty impressive -- virtually all the counties had a lower Democratic percentage than expected. However, look at the data historically. Each line represents a county, although not all counties fit into the text box:



Doesn't look very compelling. Those Clinton elections push the four-election average up.

[EndElectoral]

62. Good info! Of course it was rigged! Problem, is statistical studies are

not going to do the job...

I hate to say it, but it's going to take whistle blowers on "HOW" that fraud was perpetrated. Jeff Fisher has made an assertion which sounds wild, but if true, would blow this thing wide open. Accurate recounts would raise eyebrows, but still not address "HOW"! And personally, even if Bush would lose a recount in Ohio, he will not give up the Presidency His argument will be that the vote was certified, and that the electoral college will have met and voted before any recount could have been concluded, and they will have elected him, and THAT IS ALL THAT COUNTS. Constitutionally, he will be correct.

So we will have anoter stolen election, UNLESS we can prove criminal intent and it links to Bush.

[masshole1979]

64. Why would the vote have been certified?

If there's a recount in Ohio, presumably it will be in time for certification. Remember, we're not talking about fuzzy fuzzy Florida. Ohio law is pretty clear on these issues, isn't it? The only real obstacle that's obvious now would be the Repub. Sec. of State, and, of course, the chance that the "real" vote and evidence trail has already been obliterated.

Correct me to the extent I'm wrong.

[Red State Blues]

68. Answer

I believe the recount can only happen after the certification. Essentially there is no "count" until the certification. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[JPZenger]

67. Ohio Population Has Low Turnover and Much Stability

There are some states that experience a high turnover in their population, and therefore might be expected to see big shifts from election to election. For example, Nevada has seen big populations increases and many people move in and out of Florida. However, Ohio's population is probably one of the most stable in the country. Therefore, you wouldn't expect to see huge shifts from year to year.

[chorti]

70. these are all small rural counties

The counties mentioned are all small and rural. Unfortunately, it is possible that Bush gained that much from 2000 to 2004 in these places.

I think that there are anomalies in Ohio but they are mainly in the urban counties, especially Cuyahoga, Mahoning, Hamilton and Franklin. Please check out my own analysis:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/11/1704769.php

[chorti]

71. What happened in Beachwood Ohio

Please check out my article on Beachwood Ohio, home to one of the largest contributors to the Republicans and a place with a lot of statistical anomalies in its 2004 vote tally:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/11/1705574.php

[chorti]

72. Is cboss the boss of the Youngstown results?

Please check out my article on the internet company that had access to the results in 9 Ohio counties before they went public:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/11/1705577.php

[EST]

76. Welcome to DU!

Members of a family rarely grow up under the same roof.

[kk897]

83. Beachwood?!

Holy Cow! Beachwood is also (probably) home to Sondra Robinson, the woman who mysteriously resigned her BoE post right before the election. She was the woman responsible for the absentee ballots in Cuyahoga County. Never heard of the town until today, when I was trying to track her down as a potential whistleblower.

(edited for spelling)

[MarkusQ]

80. Weak evidendence

Read tunesmith s comments on the links. This doesn't hold water.
We should NOT cite it if we wish to remain credible.

-- MarkusQ

P.S. That's not to say that there wasn't rigging a'plenty going on, just that you can't prove it one way or another playing with numbers like this.

[Fescue4u]

82. There's 88 counties n Ohio

This table just shows a handful.

To make a case Id like to see all the counties, otherwise its easy to dismiss this as cherry picking (which i believe that it is)