|
18% discrepancy is kind of a big one! (At 4:00 p.m. Kerry was winning the state by 18%, but three hours later he won by a little over 1% is kind of um....statistically odd, and implies that all voters between 4 and 7 have to vote for his opponent -- a couple of times. Smirk!)
So, I based my study on 2000 Gore/Bush results versus 2004 Kerry/Bush results. In 75% of the state, Kerry did as well as or better than Gore did (making it the "trend"). In the remaining 25% of the state, those numbers were reversed (meaning Bush did better against Kerry than he did Gore). When I broke it down by "size", it turned out that THE CHANGE occurred in a few select precincts, which coincidentally (?) were 80% of the "large" ones using one particular type of equipment.
In human terms, that meant that "small towns" were going more "liberal" while "big cities" were going "conservative" which seemed counter-intuitive, if you know what I mean. :eyes:
We did a "double check" of the physical votes (the first step in verifying data), but frankly needed to do more investigation (see an old rant about Bev Harris for more details), but resources weren't available for more detail. There were also some "odd" occurrences -- the first precinct that I called to see their poll books, for example, told me that the guy in charge had taken them all home, and no one was able to get a hold of him (several weeks later) to return them because he was off hunting, so if I got a hold of him (they gave me his phone number) would I please ask him to bring them back in?
Seriously.
The second precinct said that the person who knew anything about poll books wasn't going to be available until the following Monday, and then we just decided to show up at the third precinct. We did a quick "count" of the poll book, and the numbers looked "reasonable" at quick glance. (I also had a plane to catch, and we were kind of scrambling -- it was a crazy time!)
Anyway, at the end of the day, the Democrats in New Hampshire didn't even bother to show up for the last day of the recount (because they were mad at Nader -- idiots) but I talked with both the Secretary of State and the Assistant Secretary of State and went over my findings with them. I pointed out that SOMETHING funky was going on, but all I could do was run the numbers to point out where it was happening. They were/are both pretty impressive individuals who take their jobs VERY SERIOUSLY (and know the players in their state better than I do).
I'm not sure what happened next, but in the last election, the entire state of New Hampshire went completely BLUE for the first time in like, EVER. Or at least a hundred and thirty some odd years. I like to think that "behind the scenes" the good folks in the Secretary of State's office did some house cleaning, but honestly, I really don't know.
I worked behind the scenes on some other stuff for the rest of that year, and around Christmas time was suffering from some serious burnout, exacerbated by my father being diagnosed with terminal cancer (he died the following March), so I backed out and have only been peripherally involved in a few discussions since then. (I tried to help with a discussion about Holt, but it just got silly, and I've got teething twins to deal with at the moment!)
It was a very intense time. I am convinced it was "stolen" but apparently the Democrats just don't have good public relations people who can frame an argument in a convincing way. I think I was treated very respectfully by the press because I didn't say "STOLEN!" -- I said "GLITCH!" which it could very well have been. (With a glitch, it becomes less of an Evil Intent thing, and more of an Ooops! thing -- and we programmers get a lot of job security from "oopses"!)
I have a clear understanding of the human-ness of the people who were involved -- the Kerry folks on the ground were burned out after a very intense, hard fought, ultimately disappointing time, and they just disappeared. I was unofficially told that "we can't investigate a state we won without looking like fools" which was one of the stupidest things I've ever heard -- find problem in one place, and then use that same technique in next place, duh! And then there were people like Gov Bill Richardson of New Mexico who didn't want to know about stuff because if Kerry won in 2004, it would alter his chances of running for himself in 2008. (I haven't forgiven him for that.)
Threads, threads, and more threads. I'm totally off topic. What was your question again? And have I answered it?
:)
|