Fingerprints of Vote Fraud, Part I:
Siphoning Votes from Democrats to Third Party Candidates
==================================================
In the following I summarize findings posted here at DU and elsewhere to illustrate patterns of possible vote fraud in this and prior elections. I welcome your feedback. If you have additional evidence of apparent siphoning of votes from Dems to third party candidates in other states or other elections – please share them in this thread.
==================================================
ABSTRACT: One way to make the case that vote fraud occurred in the 2004 Presidential election is to demonstrate a similar pattern of unusual results in this election and previous elections in which vote fraud has been suspected. For example, unusually high vote tallies for third party candidates may result from moving votes cast for Democrats to third party candidates. The total number of votes cast remains the same, but the performance of the Democratic candidate is damaged as compared to the Republican. This paper will summarize evidence that suggests that votes were siphoned from the Democratic candidate to the third party candidate(s) in three US elections: 2000, 2003, and 2004. In two cases, the unusually high vote tallies for the third party candidates are apparent in the final vote counts. In two cases, votes appear to have been moved from the Democrat to third party candidate(s) to temporarily damage the Democrat’s performance as precincts were reporting during election night – in one case the votes were returned to the Democrat a few hours later, in the other the votes may have been transferred to the Republican candidate. Perhaps it is coincidence that the voting systems involved in these cases are Diebold, Global Election Systems, and ES&S – all with ties to Republicans.
=================================================
Two cases in which unusually high vote tallies for the third party candidates are apparent in the final vote counts: California (2003) and Ohio (2004)
CALIFORNIA (2003): Mark Crispin Miller, Professor at New York University, has described irregularities in California in the 2003 recall election <
http://www.opednews.com/miller1003_CA_Voting.htm >.
In the 2003 election, thirteen counties used Diebold voting systems: Touchscreens wre used in Alameda and Plumas; and Optiscans were used in Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity, and Tulare. These counties are spread geographically over the whole of California and do not appear to differ systematically from the state as a whole in socioeconomic status or other population characteristics that we might expect would impact candidate choice.
There were a total of 7,842,630 votes cast in the election state-wide, and 1,403,375 of these were cast in the thirteen Diebold counties. Thus 17.89% of all votes cast in the state were cast/counted on Diebold equipment. We would, therefore, expect that each candidate would receive about 18% of all of the votes they received in these counties. Twelve out of nineteen candidates show only a slight variance from an even statewide distribution. Schwarzenegger received 16.36% of all votes cast for him on Diebold systems, Bustamonte (18.78%), McLintock (19.08%), Camejo (18.9%), Huffington (17.79%), Ueberoth (15.74%), Flynt (15.88%), Coleman (15.02%), Simon (17.66%), Louie (18.7%), Roscoe (16.7%), Grosse (14.3%).
Seven of the 'lower ticket' candidates, however, have vote totals that are 2-5 times expected! Martorana received 39.28% of all votes cast for him on Diebold systems, Macaluso (39.36%), Price (47.18%), Quinn (50.8%), Sprague (65.10%), Palmieri (68.3%), Kunzman (97.5%).
Implication: Diebold affects the election outcome by moving votes from high ranked candidates to low ranked candidates (keeping the total number of votes cast constant but robbing some candidate of their votes).
OHIO (2004): An analysis of votes cast in each precinct in Cleveland, by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., reveals unusually high vote tallies for third party candidates in at least 5 of the 21 wards. Dr. Phillips complete report is here <
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/cleveland.htm>. Cleveland, Ohio voted using ES&S punch card system.
Statewide, Michael Badnarik received 0.28% of all votes cast and Michael Peroutka received 0.26% of all votes cast. Thus, any precinct in which they are reported to have gotten as much or more than 1.0% of all votes cast would differ significantly from an even statewide distribution. In at least 5 of Cleveland’s 21 wards we see unusually high vote tallies for either or both candidates:
Ward 3 consists of 21 precincts. In precinct 3B, Badnarik received 6.7% of all votes cast (93% of the total he received in that ward). In precinct 3I, Peroutka received 12.7% of all votes cast (89% of the total he received in that ward).
Ward 4 consists of 19 precincts. In precinct 4N, Badnarik received 32.7% of all votes cast (93% of the total he received in that ward). In precinct 4F, Peroutka received 40.8% of all votes cast (86% of the total he received in that ward).
Ward 5 consists of 21 precincts. In precinct 5B, Peroutka received 15.7% of all votes cast (44% of the total he received in that ward).
Ward 8 consists of 19 precincts. In precinct 8G, Badnarik received 15.7% of all votes cast (86% of the total he received in that ward). In precinct 8I, Peroutka received 9.6% of all votes cast (73% of the total he received in that ward).
Ward 13 consists of 26 precincts. In precinct 13X, Peroutka received 14.3% of all votes cast (62% of the total he received in that ward).
================================================
Three cases in which votes appear to have been moved from the Democrat to third party candidate(s) to weaken the Democrat’s performance as precincts were reporting during election night: Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) – Hamilton and Lucas Counties.
FLORIDA (2000): Black Box Voting <
http://www.blackboxvoting.org > details what happened in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. At10 p.m. on election night, a Democratic Party election official, Deborah Tannenbaum, called the county elections department and found that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000 votes. But when she checked the county’s Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore’s count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000 - all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters.
Additional research reported by Black Box Voting revealed that Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a –16,022 when votes were uploaded at approximately 10:30 p.m. on election night. On January 17, Volusia County employee Lana Hires asked the technical staff at Global Election Systems for help. “I need some answers!” she wrote. “Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16,022 hen it as uploaded.” Talbot Iredale of Global Election Systems replied: “Only the presidential totals were incorrect…The problem precinct has two memcory
cards uploaded. The second one is the one I believe caused the problem. They were uploaded on the same port approx. 1 hour apart. As far as I know there should have only been one memory card uploaded.”
What was the impact of Volusia ‘error’ on the election? Again, Black Box Voting reports: At some point between 10:16 pm and 1:12 am Bush took the lead in the state and the gap between Bush and Gore widened by an amount sufficient to cause FOX, NBC, CBS, and ABC to call Florida for Bush. By 4:00 a.m. the Volusia ‘error’ had been corrected and CBS News retracted the call for Bush. According to a CBS internal report, “the call for Bush was based entirely on the tabulated county vote. There were several errors that were responsible for that mistake. The most egregious of the data errors has been well documented. Vote reports from Volusia County.”
OHIO (2004): The Ohio Secretary of State’s website showed that with 11.25% of Hamilton County’s precincts reporting, 34,804 votes had been cast George W. Bush; 39,541 for John F. Kerry; and 39,541 for David Cobb <http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1152 >. The Ohio Secretary of State’s website now shows, (with 100% of precincts having reported) 215,639 votes for George W. Bush; 190,956 for John Kerry; and 0 for David Cobb < http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/RaceDetail.aspx?race=PP >. Hamilton County used ES&S voting systems according to VerifiedVoting.org.
OHIO (2004): The Ohio Secretary of State’s website showed that with 6.06% of Lucas County’s precincts reporting, 1,917 votes had been cast George W. Bush; 0 for John F. Kerry; and 4,685 for David Cobb <http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1152 >. The Ohio Secretary of State’s website now shows, (with 100% of precincts having reported) 85,405 votes for George W. Bush; 128,874 for John Kerry; and 0 for David Cobb < http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/RaceDetail.aspx?race=PP >. Lucas used Diebold voting systems according to VerifiedVoting.org.
Important: In the cases above it appears as if votes were moved from the Democrat to third party candidate(s) to weaken the Democrat’s performance as precincts were reporting during election night. In Florida (2000) the votes initially given to the Socialist candidate were apparently returned to Gore. In Ohio (2004) it is not clear that the votes were returned to Kerry.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
