Miami Herald - Suwanee County (FL)

[RaulVB]

I know there is another tread going on this topic but...I am just to excited because finally the data in Florida shows what really took place!

The Miami Herald reporters stopped doing the count in Suwanee county because the numbers were starting to catch up with them. As other have said already, we need to understand that the shift of votes between candidates responds to a pattern, that is a net gain or loss for one candidate usually means the opposite for the other and also a net variation/shift on the total mass of votes.

I believe the reporters understood that very well and they just "freaked out."

Let's say that they found a voting movement/shift of "just" 300 votes in those counties, out of 17.000. If you do the math that would mean a shift/movement of 3.000 votes out of 170.000 and 30.000 out of 1.700.000 or about 140.000 net shift/movement of votes in the Floridian electoral universe.

Well, that is a HUGE development but not enough for Kerry, right?

Wrong!

The University of California/Berkeley study showed that even a more important shift/movement of votes took place in those counties were Kerry and the Democrats destroyed Bush in November 2nd!

In other words, the "Miami Herald" has just made the case for a legal challenge to the election.

Regards.

[whistle]

1. Are you saying that they have uncovered a pattern error. . .

. . . in the voting shifts from Kerry over to Bush? And having found that, the reporters of the Miami Herald arbitrarily stopped counting?

That can only mean that the tabulation program code has some sort of anomaly built into it where it computes a ratio of the number of votes cast to say the differences between Kerry and Bush at a certain point in the tabulation and then makes adjustments in the tallies by a certain ratio to favor Bush over Kerry.

If that is true, then this is the smoking computer processing unit! Why did the reporters stop the counts I wonder? Are the numbers of source of these recounts being protected? I hope they just have not walked away thinking they have a story, only to come back with officials who will find nothing. This is very good news.

[LisaL]

2. Their goal was to prove Bush won fairly.

That's the story they wrote. Even though Kerry picked up votes and Bush lost votes in the 2 counties they finished counting in. They never finished the third county, never explained why, but wrote their little paper on how Bush won fair and squire. One can't help but wonder why they stopped counting the third county. Maybe Kerry was picking too many votes there? Certainly Kerry/Bush ratio suggests he was, and they never finished counting.

[RaulVB]

5. Exactly!

That is what happened.

If you don't mind I have an open question for everybody.

Is there any link available to the University of California/Berkeley study that shows "extra" votes for Bush in heavily Democratic Florida counties?

I can't find it...

Thanks

[RaulVB]

3. You are correct!

Yes, that seems to be the case.

Look, those reporters are not different to anybody around this forum in, at least, one element: they can add numbers.

They found a pattern of discrepance between the "official" tally and their own count and they just decided to halt the experiment. Now, after the fact they had to post their results but they tried to be "clever", well, by Florida "standards."

They couldn't bury the actual figures so they had to "camouflage" the whole thing by including half-true comments from Florida's electoral officials, some very bizarre notes from local "politicians" and so on...

Also, if you remember, the counting "glitch" in at least one case is very well documented. One machina in Volusia county stopped counting at 32.000 votes and then "decided" to count backwards. You see, all makes sense now and it was right in front of our "collective nose" all this time.

Regards.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. "clever", well, by Florida "standards."

LOL! Well said.

After several years of digging in city files I learned they're not clever at all. They just never expect anybody to look. And, what finally defeated me, is that there isn't a lawyer in Florida that is affordable to a citizen AND can challenge them without that lawyer having a conflict of interest.

So, if you're going to go up against a Florida public entity, you just need one Florida lawyer to make it official, but be sure you have an army of out-of-state attorneys that don't do any business here.

[whistle]

8. If that was the intent and actions of these two Miami Herald. . .

...employees, they are neither reporters nor journalists, they are clerks doing the bidding of their media-whore bosses. I thought that the Miami Herald was owned by the Chicago Tribune and that at least some of their reporting staff would seek to put out potential Pulitzer prize material. I guess I'm wrong once more in my ideals. It is more about pandering than truth.

[jsamuel]

4. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=91921&mesg_id=91921

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. All we need to do is go to Suwannee County

and recount the votes ourselves.

Since the election has been certified the ballots are now available for anyone who wishes to examine them. However, since we are not allowed to touch the ballots, election workers must be employed to hold them up for us. That will cost a little money, but we just need to find out how much they charged the Miami Herald and go from there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x90331

[bemis12]

9. One has to wonder....

... If the Miami Herald has no interest in the biggest story of the century, and are "in on" a Bush vote fraud scheme.....

Why wouldn't they just "not report" it? Or even just lie? Seems so logical to me.

[EMunster]

10. Think this was addressed...at this link...or tell me different...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x93139