A Close Look at How Siegelman “Lost” the 2002 AL Governor’s Race: The Role of Central Tabulators

[Time for change]

A close look at the 2002 Alabama Governor’s race suggests that the fraud perpetrated in that election was more obvious than even the 2000 or 2004 U.S. Presidential elections. The final official results were Riley 672,225, Siegelman 669,105 – a difference of 3,120 votes, representing a margin of 0.2% of the total.

It would behoove us to have a good understanding of how this happened, because I have a slight suspicion that we’ll see more of this sort of thing this November, and it should be much easier to prevent if we know what to look for.


Election night, November 5, 2002, Bay Minette, Alabama

Republican controlled Bay Minette is the county seat for Baldwin County, Alabama. In 2002, Baldwin County used optical scan machines to tabulate vote counts from paper ballots filled out by voters and fed into the machines. The paper ballots themselves are saved, which means that they are available for recounting in case of close or contested elections.

The machine tabulated results from each precinct in the country are recorded on individual “data packs”, which are picked up by sheriff deputies after the polls close and delivered to the Bay Minette Board of Elections, which then use a central tabulator to tabulate the county-wide vote count.

The initial vote count for Governor for Baldwin County, reported from the Bay Minette tabulator at 10:45 p.m., was quite surprising to say the least. It reported: Riley (R) 30,142, Siegelman (D) 11,820, and the Libertarian candidate, John Sophocleus, 13,190. Although it was expected that Siegelman would lose Baldwin County, the margin of the loss not believable, as he had lost Baldwin County in the Governor’s race in 1998 by only a little over four thousand votes. Furthermore, the idea of his losing to the Libertarian candidate was not plausible.

So, “someone” from the sheriff’s office went into the tabulation room to look into the matter and returned a few minutes later, announcing that the problem had been fixed. The new totals, which were reported at 11:04 p.m. and picked up and distributed by the AP, were: Riley 31,052, Siegelman 19,070, and Sophocleus a much more reasonable 937. The pickup of 7,250 votes by Siegelman was enough to give him a slim state-wide victory.

But two minutes later, at 11:06 p.m., the results were changed again, reducing Siegelman’s total back down to 12,736, a decrease of 6,334 votes, which gave the election back to Riley. William Pfeifer, the Baldwin County Chairman of the Democratic Party, was just outside the tabulating room at 11:04 when the second report, giving Siegelman the victory, was announced. But he didn’t find out about the reversal until he returned home and turned on the news.


Next morning, November 6, 2002, Bay Minette

The next morning, Pfeifer arrived at the probate court building in an attempt to speak with probate officials to find out what had happened. Pfeifer relates his experience:

No one could get back there to talk to the members of the panel for most of that time, and we didn't get to actually speak to them until just a few minutes before they went out and did the certification. (When I finally got to speak with them, just before the certification) I tried to persuade them to wait until Friday at noon (for the final certification). They were very insistent that the results were correct and that they were going to certify them that morning.

The board certified the election results a little after 10:30 a.m., and Riley gave his victory speech around 11:00 a.m.


Failed request for recount

Two days later, Pfeifer petitioned for a hand recount of the Baldwin County ballots. But Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor ruled later that day that the seals on the boxes containing the ballots could not be broken without a court order to do so. He claimed that his ruling was based on the Alabama Constitution. Don Siegelman contested the ruling and continued to seek a recount, which may have been the reason that he was framed for bribery and sent to prison, as testified to by Dana Jill Simpson:

The Simpson affidavit says the conference call focused on how the Riley campaign could get Siegelman to withdraw his challenge. According to Simpson's statement, William Canary, a senior G.O.P. political operative and Riley adviser who was on the conference call, said "not to worry about Don Siegelman" because "'his girls' would take care of" the governor. Canary then made clear that "his girls" was a reference to his wife, Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Canary reassured others on the conference call that he had the help of a powerful pal in Washington. Canary said "not to worry that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman…

In an apparently unrelated incident, Bill Pryor was appointed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by George W. Bush during a Congressional recess in 2004.


Statistical anomalies

It is worth noting that when the original computer error was identified, which resulted in adjusting Siegelman’s vote upwards from 11,820 to 19,070 and reducing the Libertarian candidate’s vote downward from an implausible 13,190 to 937, there were also five other races that had to be re-adjusted at the same time. But when the third and final report was issued, the totals in those five other races remained as what they had been adjusted to, while Siegelman’s vote total was the only one that was re-adjusted.

I’ve already noted that Siegelman’s vote total in 2002 in Baldwin County was totally out of line with what would be expected from his performance in 2004.

In addition, James H. Gundlach, a professor of sociology at Auburn University, performed an analysis of the data and concluded that someone with a wireless connection must have changed the tallies. He presented his analysis at the 2003 annual meeting of the Alabama Political Science Association in a paper titled " A Statistical Analysis of Possible Electronic Ballot Box Stuffing”. In that paper Gundlach emphasized the reduction in Siegelman’s vote count from 19,070 to 12,736, saying that such a dramatic decrease is

commonly found in data that is intentionally changed but rarely the result of random errors… The circumstances surrounding it are really hard to believe… The notion that the software is designed to count votes (but that it) comes up with different results means somebody is messing with the software…. Computers do not accidentally produce different totals… Someone is controlling the computer to produce the different results.

A discussion of central tabulator mediated election fraud

County central tabulators receive vote counts from all precincts throughout the county. They generally receive the counts electronically by modem, and they receive a whole bunch of physical evidence (tapes from individual voting machines, memory cards, provisional ballots, etc.) as well. The central tabulators tabulate and report the vote counts for the whole county and by precinct, using processes that vary from state to state. These processes can be quite complicated, as indicated by this article from Verified Voting, which explains how people can monitor the tabulation process.

The “pre-tabulator” vote counts for individual precincts are the vote counts that are posted by the individual precincts shortly after poll closing on Election Day. The “post-tabulator” vote counts are the vote counts that are reported out by the county central tabulator, and those are the official counts. For obvious reasons, the pre-tabulator and post-tabulator vote counts should match in a fair election.

There are reasons, I believe, to think that central tabulator mediated fraud is a more practical way to influence a national or state-wide election than is programming vote switching for individual voting machines. Individual voting machines register perhaps one hundred votes per machine. So consider how many individual voting machines would have to be rigged to change the results of a presidential election.

County central tabulators, on the other hand, tabulate the results for a whole county, which in large counties may account for a million or more votes. So you’d have to rig the results of ten thousand individual voting machines to achieve the impact of rigging the results of a single large county central tabulator.

Let’s now consider some examples of likely central tabulator election fraud:

November 2000, Election Day, Volusia County, Florida
The TV networks initially called Florida for George W. Bush based on a “computer glitch” in the central county tabulation of votes in Volusia County, which mysteriously subtracted 16,022 votes from Al Gore’s total. Gore subsequently conceded the election to Bush, but then retracted his concession when the problem was discovered and the votes were given back to Gore, at which time the election was then declared a virtual tie – pending a vote recount that was never completed. So probably the glitch in Volusia County had nothing to do with the final election results. But still, one has to wonder about the reasons for such an error.

November 2004, Election Day, Cleveland, Ohio
The combination of exceptionally long voting lines throughout Cleveland on Election Day 2004 on the one hand, and yet surprisingly low official voter turnout in Cleveland, is very perplexing, especially since Cleveland used punch card voting, which is not subject to the delays that electronic voting tends to cause. That finding alone suggests foul play, since long voting lines should be associated with high voter turnout, not low voter turnout. And since Cleveland is a very heavily democratic city with over three hundred thousand registered voters, the potential for fraud is obvious.

Because I was very suspicious of this I tried to ascertain whether or not the pre-tabulator and post-tabulator vote counts for Cuyahoga County matched. The post-tabulator vote counts were published on the Cuyahoga county web-site, so that part was easy. I then requested the pre-tabulator vote counts from the Director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, Michael Vu. Though Vu repeatedly promised to obtain those for me, he never followed through. So I collaborated with Ray Beckerman’s Ohio Project to conduct an audit to obtain the pre-calculator vote counts. The initial audit of 15 precincts (out of 1458 in Cuyahoga County) showed a net loss to the Kerry/Edwards ticket of 140 votes. However, the audit was never able to be completed.

The other way that the vote count in Cuyahoga County could have been confirmed would have been to conduct a county-wide hand recount of the votes. The rules of the Ohio recount specified that a 3% recount of each county would be conducted, and if any discrepancies were found in the recount (between the pre-tabulator and the official post-tabulator precinct counts), then a county-wide hand recount would be conducted. No vote discrepancies were found in the Cuyahoga County 3% recount. However, many anomalies were observed at the recount, and two election workers were convicted of rigging the vote count.

November 2004, Election Night, Warren County, Ohio
When election officials in Warren County, Ohio, performed the final tabulation of votes for their county, they decided to do so in private, locking out all reporters from observation of the process. Their initial excuse for this was that they didn’t want reporters to interfere with the counting process. Later, they changed that excuse to say that the FBI warned them of a terrorism alert of grade 10 on a 1 to 10 scale. :rofl: That claim was later denied by the FBI, and county officials refused to name the FBI agent whom they claimed gave them the warning. Several months later I called Erica Solvig, the reporter who broke the story, in an attempt to find out more about what happened. She told me that she wasn’t at liberty to discuss it.


Lessons that Democrats should learn from all this

1) In any close election against a Republican, consider very carefully the possibility of election fraud before conceding.

2) Democrats should push hard to make sure that paper trails are required for all elections, so that the citizens of our country don’t have to be at the mercy of privately owned electronic voting machines that essentially count our votes in secret. And when paper trails are available, there is no reason in the world why, in a democracy, hand recounts shouldn’t be done whenever the results of an election appear suspicious or questionable. Election officials should never be allowed to pick what precincts are counted.

3) Prevention of central tabulator-mediated election fraud :
If county central tabulator fraud is perpetrated, the official post-tabulator precinct counts will not match the pre-tabulator counts, which are calculated at each precinct in the county shortly after poll closing. The post-tabulator counts are easy to identify, since they are the official counts and will be posted on the county Board of Elections web site as soon as the results become official.

The pre-tabulator counts are more difficult to obtain. In my attempt to help confirm fraud in the 2004 presidential election, I tried to obtain pre-tabulator counts in order to compare them with post-tabulator counts. Because of the difficulties I had obtaining those counts I talked with voting rights organizations to ascertain how I could obtain them. I was astounded to hear from them that they had also tried but had rarely been able to obtain the pre-tabulator counts.

Thus, it appears that within weeks or days following the 2004 election, the pre-tabulator vote counts either tended to disappear, or else county boards of elections were generally unhelpful in making them available to enquiring citizens.

But they must be available at the time of poll closing, since each precinct must report them to the county central tabulator. In many jurisdictions, they are required to be publicly posted at each precinct at the time of poll closing. But even if they aren’t posted, there should be no reason why poll watchers couldn’t obtain them. In fact, that is one of the most important tasks of today’s poll watchers.

Identifying substantial mismatches between pre-tabulator and post-tabulator vote counts should signal a high likelihood of election fraud. In any county where that occurs in a close race, automatic hand recounts should be required.

[drm604]

1. K&R

Very important stuff. I talk about this stuff and people think I'm crazy, but they're just too many anomalies that all point to intentional vote miscounts.

[msongs]

2. Post results at ALL precincts before sending to central tabulator nt

[defendandprotect]

19. I thought that already had to be done and some signature on it?

[mod mom]

74. better yet hand count at the precinct level w full public witness and post those

results at the precinct level.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. iffy premise

As far as I can tell from contemporaneous news reports, Siegelman was awarded thousands of votes in one precinct, and then those thousands of votes were taken away. So the facts don't seem to support Gundlach's conjectures. And the stats really don't either. He says that Baldwin County becomes an outlier, but it doesn't; he says that certain slopes should be the same, but offers no basis for his expectation, and I can't find one. So, on a preponderance of the evidence available to me, Riley actually won.

None of this mitigates the importance of checking central tabs. Precinct-level data absolutely ought to be made available at the precinct on election night. (It also has no bearing on everything that has happened to Siegelman since 2002.)

[Time for change]

9. There are several things to consider here -- not just the numbers

Reasons for believing that Siegelman won (I'll start with the numbers)

1. In 1998 Siegelman won 45% of the Baldwin County vote. In 2002, if you accept the official numbers, he won only 29%. If you accept the first revised figures he won 38%. It's true that he won a larger statewide vote in 98 (58%) than he did in 02 (50%), but still, a decrease from 45% to 29% is huge compared with his decline in statewide vote.

2. The first result was clearly out of line, with the Libertarian candidate winning 24% of the vote. Right there, you have prima facie evidence that there was something very wrong with the tabulator, or the system, or something. The fact that three separate vote counts led to three highly disparate results is, again prima facie evidence that something is very wrong.

3. The idea that the second results were overturned by the third results within two minutes, and occurred just after the Democratic County Chairman left the premises, sounds highly suspicious.

4. The way the whole thing was handled is highly suspicious. Clearly, the election officials were in a great big hurry to certify the results. Why? They had two full days to certify them. With three bizarre vote reports out of Baldwin County, all highly different from each other, why should the election officials be in such a hurry to certify the results?

5. Why no recount? The AG said it was because the AL Constitution held that the seals on the ballot boxes couldn't be opened without a court order. Well, what the hell are ballots saved for, if not for recounting? And why couldn't a court order be obtained to open them and count the votes? Whatever you think of the statistics in this case, certainly you could rarely find a situation that more demanded a recount than this one.

6. The evidence for Rove being involved in railroading Siegelman into jail is very strong. It seems highly likely to me that the people involved in that were the same people involved in overseeing the election. We are talking about VERY powerful and unscrupulous people here.

In summary, this whole thing stinks to high heaven. No one of the above amounts to a good deal of evidence by itself. But when you put it all together, the evidence seems overwhelming to me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. well...

Gundlach seems to think that the numbers demonstrate something, and I've seen plenty of people trade on his supposed expertise. It's sort of confusing and frustrating. There isn't a lot of there there.

The slope comparing Siegelman's '98 and '02 county vote shares is greater than 1: he tended to drop further in the counties where he was weakest to begin with, including Baldwin. There is nothing inherently startling about this pattern, and no reason to single out Baldwin County: several counties have larger residuals in both directions.

The first two sets of results have more gubernatorial votes than voters. Clearly that's a big problem, but it's not inherently one that points to Siegelman being robbed. According to the New York Times report, Siegelman got over 6,000 votes in one precinct, and then most of those votes were taken away. If someone can refute that, I would like to know. Otherwise, it seems a bit like arguing that Bush was cheated out of thousands of votes in Gahanna.

Like it or not, there's also nothing suspicious about Republicans resisting a recount. You're shocked, shocked to see winners trying to protect their lead. I'm not defending it, but I can't agree that it points to fraud. (How many DUers were waxing rhapsodic about how wonderful it would be to have recounts in MT and VA to confirm the Democratic takeover of the Senate?) I don't know enough about Alabama election law to know if anyone made a wrong call, but many state laws would require a higher standard than Siegelman likely could meet. That's why I favor laws that make it easier to audit and to recount ballots. Even if Baldwin was squeaky clean, an election that close deserves a second look.

Based on my limited knowledge, indeed Siegelman was railroaded. I just don't see how that strengthens the case that he won the election.

[Time for change]

16. One reason for singling out Baldwin County is

that the central calculator performed 3 counts within less than a half an hour, and they were all radically different. I don't know what Alabama law is, but if that plus the 0.2% vote margin didn't meet the bar for a recount, I can't imagine what would.

On the question of whether Baldwin County was a statistical outlier, can you answer this question (I don't have the data -- can't get into the link): How many counties in the state demonstrated a greater percent decrease (geometrically) for Siegelman from 98 to 02?. I'll bet it was less than 5, and I don't doubt that it was zero, but tell me if I'm wrong about that. Anyhow, as I said, that analysis was not a major part of the reason why I believe the election was stolen, and I barely mentioned it in the OP. The part that I quoted from Gundlach was this:

The notion that the software is designed to count votes (but that it) comes up with different results means somebody is messing with the software…. Computers do not accidentally produce different totals

Would you disagree with that, as a general rule?

As far as the VA and MT Senate races are concerned, of course I was glad when Allen and Burns conceded without a recount, but had they asked for a recount I certainly would not have been outraged about it or thought that it was unfair to do one (though I might have suspected that there was some fraud afoot).

Edited to add: Why Siegelman being railroaded into prison increases the likelihood that the election was stolen: I believe that that very much increases the likelihood. There are few people who have both the means and the lack of scruples to railroad an ex-governor into prison. Those very same people would would also be the most likely to have the means and the lack of scruples to steal an election from the same person that they later railroaded into prison. Same motitve, same people.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. I'm not sure what that rule would mean

Tabulators total things. Apparently the first time they read the numbers from Magnolia Springs, they got thousands of votes for the Libertarian. The second time, they got thousands of votes for Siegelman. And the third time, they didn't get thousands of votes for anyone. Is that weird? Sure. Does it mean that "somebody is messing with the software"? Possibly, but it easily could be a hardware problem -- or a wetware problem. I myself have produced different totals in rapid succession within a few minutes, and not because I had been hacked.

Lay election forensics has been plagued by a propensity to make up new statistics without inherent rationale, and geometric percentage decrease is another one of those. (Since you ask, the decline in Baldwin was second largest, next to St. Clair.) Siegelman generally lost more votes in counties where he did worse in the first place, and Baldwin was his fourth worst county in 1998.

Gundlach's analysis is not immaterial here, because he found a tight fit between the precinct-level vote shares in 1998 and 2002. That led him to the hypothesis that votes had been taken from Siegelman proportionally in every precinct. He had a cute story about it, but it's inconsistent with the reports that all the changes were in one precinct.

Yes, every decent ER person would have gone along with a recount in MT or VA, of course. But my point is: partisans tend to believe deeply that their candidate(s) won, and they tend to be suspicious of their adversaries. It's not anomalous. If John Kerry had won the initial count in Ohio, and Bush had demanded a statewide recount based on the 'suspicious change' in that Gahanna precinct, (some) Democrats around the country would have been livid. And so would Republicans, only in the other direction. Moreover, Ohio Democrats would very likely have opposed a "fishing expedition" in the ballots, whereas Ohio Republicans would have called for "transparency," and probably most of them would have been very sincere about their dueling talking points. As far as I can tell, everyone in Alabama behaved about as I would expect.

If the election was stolen in Baldwin County, then the people who had the direct means to do that wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the people who had the means to railroad Siegelman into prison. But I'm still not getting to the premise.

Clearly this discussion ends in futility, because we don't have enough data points, so we can equally well connect them to make a monster, a duck, or whatever. It seems like an absolute non-starter to argue that Siegelman actually got thousands of votes in Magnolia Springs; but if you want to believe that there was some other bad business that Alabama Republicans wanted to cover up, well, it's certainly possible. I just don't see how the data support confident statements that the election was stolen; if it was, I still haven't heard a plausible account of what the vote change in Baldwin had to do with it.

To me, AL 2002 isn't a good example of election fraud (at least until someone comes up with evidence that makes more sense to me). It's a good example of how bad procedures and rules foster partisan arguments.

[Time for change]

37. The suspicion is not based on the final numbers alone -- it is based on the whole series of events

plus what we know about the enemy we are dealing with (Yes, I consider Rove and company enemies, not just opponents).

I agree that if all we had going on this was the final numbers from Baldwin County, there would be no story here. The fact that Siegelman's percent decline in Baldwin County from 1998 was the second greatest in the state certain adds something to the argument, but it would be very little on its own. In fact, if that's all there was there would be no story here at all. But it has to be taken in the context of 3 disparate vote counts in a matter of less than a half hour, and a rush to certification the next morning, and the refusal to do a recount.

I was not aware that the increase in Siegelman's total on the second count all came from one precinct (presumably). If true, then clearly that would mean that the second count was also wrong, though it certainly wouldn't be a good argument against doing a recount. But how would anyone know that the addition to the vote total on the second count all came from Magnolia Springs? I'm pretty sure that that wasn't noted in the AP story that went out right after the second count was reported(tell me if I'm wrong about that). There were only two minutes between the second count and the third count. The Democratic Party Chairman left the premises immediately after things were supposedly straightened out with the announcement of the second count. Two minutes later the election is reversed. And then, when he tries to talk with someone about it the next morning, nobody will talk to him until immediately prior to the certification. Were the details of the second count actually preserved? Or is the story about all of Siegelman's increase coming from Magnolia Springs something we know simply by word of mouth?

Yes, of course, if the election was stolen it wouldn't necessarily be by the same people who railroaded him into prison. But it seems a pretty damn good bet that it was.

You note that "partisans tend to be suspicious of their adversaries". Certainly there is some truth in that. But the people that we're dealing with here are beyond adversaries, and they have a very long reach. They have proven over and over again that you can't believe a word they say. Not ANYTHING. They lied us into a war. They're trying to lie us into another war. They throw people into prison idefinitely and without trial on the slimmest of evidence. They torture thousands of people throughout the world for no good reason at all. They are tyrants. They are evil. So yes, that does cause the bar for suspicion to be lowered -- and rightfully so.

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. shrug

No one AFAIK actually has presented evidence that the county probate court certified faster than they usually do. No one has presented evidence that the treatment of the recount was in any way unusual. You think these apparently normal things form a suspicious pattern; I have no idea how to resolve or to advance an argument about that. (The part about the Democratic party chair dashing out of the building is sort of weird, but it isn't even clear that the timeline is accurate, so I don't know what else to say about that.)

Your last paragraph, unfortunately, is circular. We don't know what people we're dealing with in Alabama. I think it's great for you to be suspicious; it's your credulity that worries me.

People could know that the votes came from Magnolia Springs if they had an unofficial canvass report by precinct. There's no way for me to tell at this point whether the reporters actually saw this, or whether they were taking someone else's word for it. Maybe someone in the Siegelman camp can clarify that.

[Time for change]

84. "We don't know what people we're talking about in Alabama"

It was their connection to Rove that I was referring to.

I think that this testimony from Dana Jill Simpson says quite a bit about them.

The Simpson affidavit says the conference call focused on how the Riley campaign could get Siegelman to withdraw his challenge. According to Simpson's statement, William Canary, a senior G.O.P. political operative and Riley adviser who was on the conference call, said "not to worry about Don Siegelman" because "'his girls' would take care of" the governor. Canary then made clear that "his girls" was a reference to his wife, Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Canary reassured others on the conference call that he had the help of a powerful pal in Washington. Canary said "not to worry that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman…

And then, not long after that, Siegelman is sent to prison on trumped up bribery charges and Bill Pryor, the AG who denied the recount, is appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals by Bush during a Congressional recess.

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. well...

My understanding was that a judge threw out Siegelman's case -- rightly or wrongly -- so I'm not sure why it was necessary (or, in the short run, effective) to call in the DoJ. Not that Karl Rove seems to limit himself to what is necessary.

[Joe Chi Minh]

77. I don't think OnTheOtherHand has ever been able to grasp the fact that

fraud is proven in the courts on the basis of an array of circumstantial evidence pointing in a certain direction. Not tested under laboratory conditions.

Don't bother to respond, OTH, unless to rebut the incontrovertible truth concerning proof of fraud in the courts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

82. we actually saw what happened in the courts

So, you lose another round.

I would say "Thanks for playing" -- but to some of us, this actually matters. Luckily we aren't at the mercy of your misjudgment.

[Joe Chi Minh]

83. It speaks volumes that you call them "courts".... even after the exposure

of their rampant politicisation, and Gonzales speedy exit. Even Oscar the cat could see that coming!

Let me know when you work out how many angels would fit on the the point of needle, won't you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. you might reread post #77 n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

91. Precisely! Not "kangaroo courts", but "c-o-u-r-t-s".

[bleever]

4. Outstanding!

Thank you, Time for change!

[blm]

5. Shouldn't people be counted AS they are going into each voting place, too? They do it at ballgames

and malls, ferchrissakes, and just about everywhere else they want to check attendance or traffic numbers.

[bleever]

7. That's an incredibly interesting point.

:thumbsup:

If we can know about every website everyone visits, and every email and phone call, how is it we can't keep track of how many people turned out to register their ultimate right as a citizen?

[defendandprotect]

21. Yes, but in Florida --- Sarasota?-- 18,000 people went in . . .

and voted . . . but who was it they ALL didn't vote for ???

Was it Senator or Representative? I don't recall --- but all 18,000 of them came into the polling place, went into the booth -- and mysteriously didn't vote in one race!!!

So there sure are a number of ways to steal!!!

And, it seems like this isn't always the easiest thing to do cause it has to be hidden.
And then you have these 18,000 non-votes just hanging out there????

[bleever]

24. All those people taking time to vote for important offices

except President of the United States.

That is a very important -- and much discounted -- measure of room for electoral mischief.

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. Rep. -- Christine Jennings in CD 13

Not likely to have been a hack, in that it seems that anyone who could have hacked the machines to create 18,000 non-votes presumably could have hacked them to switch votes invisibly, which would have been less obvious. But no one really knows what happened. (ETA: Or whoever does know isn't telling. That's possible too.)

[Joe Chi Minh]

79. What an intriguing, insightful, significant demurral, OTH. I bet nobody else thought of that point.

And you even refined it! Exquisite.

[defendandprotect]

101. Right --- it wasn't for president -- it was for a Representative . . .

It could have simply been a INCOMPLETE HACK . . . !!!

Obviously, what we're seeing is that this isn't the easiest stuff to do ---
there are problems with it ---
it has to be something that can be hidden ---

[hootinholler]

36. I think that's what the poll books are suposed to do. n/t

[Time for change]

94. I hadn't thought about that before

It could be a useful adjunct, but I do see a number of problems with it.

For one thing, election fraud often involves switching votes rather than just adding them to one candidate or subtracting from another. In that case, having a count of the number of voters would be no check on the validity of the election results. If central tabulators are involved in fraud, the best check would be to get the counts at all precincts before being sent to the central tabulator. As I noted in the OP, finding mismatches would be pretty good evidence of fraud.

Another problem is that many people who walk into a polling place don't vote. Some are accompanying others, others are there to poll watch, and some people are sent elsewhere because they went to the wrong polling place.

The poll books maintain a listing of actual voters, and that may be the best way to ascertain whether the number of voters matches the official count. But I don't know to what extent they might also be subject to electronic manipulation.

[L. Coyote]

95. Matching poll book numbers with precinct ballot counts is important

especially in Ohio with no precinct mark on the ballots AND
the vote changing when a ballot moves to the wrong precinct.
So, having the correct number of ballots in each precinct is ESSENTIAL.

The correct tally guarantees nothing when the ballots are switched!

[Octafish]

6. Rush to judgement, er -- certification!

Siegelman was framed and the perpetrators are criminal conspirators who are operating the Departmenet of Justice and the rest of the executive branch. Much of the judicial branch is corrupted, as evidenced by the 5-4 Bush v Gore decision. Since so much of the legislative branch is cowed by the grandness of the little turd from Crawford, it's a safe bet a majority of those in Congress have been compromised.

Thank you for another outstanding post, Time for change -- a most important post. KRB.

Whatever happened to voter fraud, anyway?

[Canuckistanian]

8. I keep thinking about "Central Scrutinizers"

Enforcing laws that haven't even been passed.

http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/wiki/The_Central_Scrutinizer

[Richard Steele]

10. K&R

[smoogatz]

11. k/r

Let's recount them now, just for yucks.

[L. Coyote]

40. Switched ballots recount the same every time. The Ohio recount was a waste of time

and a drain on activist pockets at the very time when Bush could have been stopped if the focus had been on the fraud instead!

The Mighty Wurlitzer is playing too loud in this thread.
Why are the R talking points being repeated here?
Are they that effective at spreading disinformation?

What is needed now is not recounting, but rather forensic investigations.

Are the punch card ballots in the correct precinct? Check the voter FINGERPRINTS!

[Time for change]

43. They didn't follow the rules. Blackwell was SOS and he let them get away with it

If there would have been a fair recount, we don't know what would have happened.

[L. Coyote]

12. Where did you get this version of events in Baldwin County?

It is different that previous versions I've read.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. looks like here;

http://baldwincountynow.com/articles/2007/07/25/local_news/doc469fbb5bd2a7f444039407.txt

But I can't remember whether there are deets that appear in Glynn Wilson's account and not here.

[Time for change]

17. I initially got it in an e-mail from the supervisor of the poll watching

effort in Montgomery County, MD, Stan Boyd. I volunteered for poll watching under his direction in 06 and the 08 primaries. But much of it can also be found in the links in the OP, especially the first one.

What was your version?

[L. Coyote]

18. Don Siegelman has addressed this. Also, this is the best source

http://harpers.org/subjects/DonSiegelman/SubjectOf/BlogEntry

Video links here:
Political Prisoner Don Siegelman: Will the 60 Minutes Spotlight Make a Difference?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2909551

[Time for change]

33. Thank you -- which one of those stories contains information on the 2002 election?

[L. Coyote]

85. A good link to follow is donsiegelman.org

http://www.donsiegelman.org

Most readers here read part of this already.

Fixed Elections?
http://www.donsiegelman.org/pages/topics/QUESTIONS/fixed_elections.html

Albeit, the <more at Locust Fork Journal> link points to Harpers, the true source of:

Election Fraud in Baldwin County
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000509

[fascisthunter]

106. Thanks

:thumbsup:

[MelissaB]

14. Bookmarking for a closer read tomorrow.

Thanks for this!

[defendandprotect]

20. First, wasn't the expectation that Siegelman was going to win?

And weren't there exit polls which also indicated this?

[defendandprotect]

22. A .02% loss and no automatic recount --- ??? Whaaat???

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. 0.2%, actually... AL changed the law after this

I think there's now an automatic recount if the margin is under 0.25%. But most states do not have automatic recounts of any kind based on closeness -- and the states that do, don't always mandate hand recounts.

So, before going further, check your own state's laws. You may have some work to do! (Most of us do.)

[PufPuf23]

52. that would be a great research project for a masters project

to build a database of State voting laws and procedures. Alabama is a nest of oligarch, racist, and anti-democratic factions, always has been. The Iran-Contra arms came from the Huntsville Arsenal. I find it rational to expect the worse including Rumsfield's unknown worse in interpreting anything out of the State of Alabama. Look at Shelby. Shelby, Sessions, and Bachus Ick. The Natalee Holloway case has deep, multi-generational connections from AL to the WH. Think Plan Colombia. Shelby is worse than Bachus and both are on powerful committees in DC with seniority. Alabama is a corrupt anti-American swamp hiding behind faux-Christianity that needs some serious draining. Just check out the wiki on Bachus. There is a nest of multi-generational financial and political elite with undue influence and benefit on and from DC GOP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Bachus

[defendandprotect]

99. Good question . . . if I find out, I'll let you know ---

I remember that a number of states had laws the other way around --- i.e., if no one reached 50% or more = then a recount.

But, I have NO idea what we do in NJ --- !!!

[Time for change]

96. Automatic or not, there should have been a recount

The AG said that the AL constitution prohibited a recount without a court order. But why couldn't a court order be obtained? If this election didn't pose sufficient grounds for a recount, I can't imagine what would.

[Kurovski]

23. K&R. (nt)

[OneBlueSky]

25. the real tragedy here is that the Democrats had two full years of control . . .

of the Congress and refused to do ANYTHING to address and halt election fraud . . . despite mountains of publicly available evidence, there are STILL senators and members of Congress who refuse to believe that elections in the United States can be and are hacked . . . and that in close elections, the actual results can be and have been altered to change the outcome of the election . . . talk about heads in the sand . . .

[Perry Logan]

26. Congress held hearings on Ohio election fraud. There's a Senate Committee on disenfranchisement.

I agree there's not anywhere enough going on. But they have done a little work.

Federal Election Reform News:
http://www.federalelectionreform.com/news/

U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Holds Hearing on Voting Systems
On February 7, 2007, the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held its first hearing on election reform with a focus on electronic voting machines. Witnesses testified to the urgent need for improvements in the security and reliability of voting machines.

Sen. Clinton and Rep. Tubbs Jones Introduce the Count Every Vote Act
On March 7, 2007, Sen. Clinton and Rep. Tubbs Jones introduced the Count Every Vote Act, a comprehensive election reform bill that contains many of the reforms called for in the federal election reform agenda endorsed by 25 advocacy organizations.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=270254&&

Obama Introduces Bill to Rank State Election Practices and Performance
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070301-obama_introduces_bill_to_rank_state_election_practices_and_performance/index.html

Sen. Whitehouse Introduces Legislation to Prohibit Voter Caging
http://whitehouse.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=286772&

Election Fraud in Ohio Investigated by the US Congress
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HRE412A.html

Leahy Testifies Before Senate Committee On Voter Disenfranchisement
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=12&url=http%3A%2F%2Fleahy.senate.gov%2Fpress%2F200803%2F031208a.html&ei=_pcASO7DIJvAggTR6N2RCQ&usg=AFQjCNHjW3pIsVc633RvGDzrm6UN3Ldo5g&sig2=nDS2xt3U-wINDPau0QvfpA


House Committee Hearing Highlights Lax Enforcement of Voting Rights
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/4181/1/532

Sens. Feinstein and Dodd Introduce Comprehensive Ballot Integrity Act of 2007

On May 25, 2007, Sens. Feinstein and Dodd introduced a comprehensive election reform bill that would dramatically improve the nation's electronic voting systems by mandating voter-verified records and post-election audits of those records.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=c36f5f83-fbbf-a66a-2ae3-9d278d0f4e3c

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 Passes Favorably Out of House Judiciary Committee
http://boss.streamos.com/real/judiciary/full/full032907.smi

[defendandprotect]

100. I think they know . . . I mean this has been going on since the mid-1960's . . . !!!!

And how could 2000 and 2004 failed to wake up the Democrats --- ???

But now that you mention it, what has Gore recommended re elections --- ?
In fact, it's been Jimmy Carter who said the most about our stupid laws ---
NO POPULAR VOTE --- and do you remember Justice Scalia/the insane reminding Americans that
we really have no right to elect the president directly!!!

We need a mountain of change ---
And a lot of proof ---

There were two journalists who realized what was happening in the mid-1960s ---
Jim & Ken Collier in Florida were looking to do a story on the elections and decided that one
of them would run for office. Usual thing happened --- numbers don't move --- numbers jump --
"computer breakdown" --- then the numbers fall back again.
They began to investigate and found a lot of evidence.
They had a book deal with a major publisher -- like 1972 -- when the books hit the bookstores,
they were removed/suppressed.
You can read their book at this website which their family keeps going to try to inform the public.
The book is broken down --- you can scan any part of it ---

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[Joanne98]

29. Excellent. K&R! You know, if this can be proven, we will be closer to proving Bush was

never legally elected. Which is probably why Karl went to such extremes to shut it down. If we can prove, with whistleblowers, that the central tabulators were tampered with in both 2000 and 2004. We have a way to get rid of Bush's judges. Roberts and Alito are illegimate too.

[L. Coyote]

45. Proofs of election fraud are well-known already. Let's stick with the facts

and avoid getting carried off on an irrelevant tangent. The OP is wrong about all this. There is no reason to even mention the central tabulators in this case, or in Ohio punch card counties. The OP does not understand the actual situation, and interjecting central tabulators in this discussion is completely wrong.

Apparently, the database in Baldwin County was "hacked" (by someone with access?) and one thing was changed,
the Siegelman vote. That is not a problem with the tabulator, just the count as recorded.

In Cleveland (Cuyahoga County), the 2004 vote was punch cards.
So, again, the central tabulator has nothing to do with the vote fraud.

Central tabulation is a concern, and central tabulators can alter results.
That is a real issue and a real concern, albeit misapplied in these cases.

It is disturbing to see these misunderstandings on DU.
Somehow, we have yet to overcome all the disinformation spun out after 2004!

[Zynx]

31. Statistically, the Baldwin County argument in 2002 vs 1998 makes good sense.

However, the argument Cleveland turnout was low is B.S. Cuyahoga county turned out a full 100,000 more voters than in 2000 and the most since 1964 even though the population of the county dropped from 1,700,000 to 1,350,000.

[Time for change]

32. My argument was specifically about Cleveland, not Cuyahoga County in general

Cleveland is about 90% Democratic. There was a tremendous get out the vote effort in Cleveland. Extremely long voting lines all over the city demonstrated that that that effort was highly successful. And unlike the situation in Columbus, the long lines could not be explained by malfunctioning machines because Cleveland used punch card voting. So how would you explain the low turnout in Cleveland.

[Zynx]

34. Can I see 40-year data on Cleveland?

I still don't see evidence of low turnout. Turnout was 167,000 versus only 130,000 in 2000. That's an over 28% jump. Statewide turnout increased from 4.7 million to 5.6 million or a 19% increase. Cleveland turnout increased by more than the rest of the state.

[Time for change]

44. Turnout in Cleveland was about 53% of registered voters

Comparison with past years is only part of the story. It doesn't matter if turnout was greater than for the last election. The evidence on the ground was that turnout in Cleveland was very high, and that doesn't match with a 60% turnout figure.

Edited to change Cleveland turnout from 60% to 53%. When I said 60% I mis-spoke, I was thinking of Cuyahoga County.

[Zynx]

47. Anecdotal evidence is not reliable.

Anecdotally I noticed a lot more support for Kerry in Waukesha County, Wisconsin than I saw for Gore and he got creamed worse. I want evidence of people being voter numbers high enough to indicate broad based over 60% turnout.

60% turnout in a city is very high. Suburbs tend to be higher because they are higher income.

[L. Coyote]

49. Some stats

IN Cuyahoga County:
1432 precincts with 1,003,435 registered voters reported 600,467 ballots, for 59.84% voter turnout at precincts on election day.

There is some turnout difference between the city core,57.25%, and the suburbs, 63.31% (data by ballot order subsets).

[Zynx]

51. That fits with every trend I've ever seen. Suburban turnout is always a little higher than

city turnout. Sometimes it is a great deal higher.

[L. Coyote]

56. What is alarming is the percentage of non-votes = the ballots not counted as a vote

In Cuyahoga County, there is a very strong correlation between Kerry support and uncounted ballots.
This problem was greatest in inner city Cleveland.
That issue is discussed in "How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes."
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

"Cuyahoga County non-voting rates for the 2004 Presidential race uniquely presents two issues. Ohio 2004 is unique because, first, the ballot had an empty candidate position and, secondly, in Cuyahoga County votes for "disqualified" remain uncounted. Typically, all cross-votes count for a wrong candidate, and therefore, under-voting is only an uncounted votes issue. In Cuyahoga 2004, because only four of five ballot options are reported counts, the cross-votes for disqualified remain covered up and the degree and locations of cross-voting are obfuscated, masked as no vote."

"The precinct-level correlation of non-votes to Kerry votes is 0.423, while to Bush votes it is negative, at -0.50 .... Suspiciously, where cross-voting reduces Kerry's vote the most, the non-vote rate is highest. The rate jumps significantly in precincts which reported more than 70% Kerry support."

"... all Cuyahoga precincts with over 3.6% non-votes ... represents 11.0% of the ballots cast and 27.7% of the non-votes. Non-voting is over four times normal in these precincts. Nearly all have over 75% Kerry support, many have over 90% Kerry support. Bush's mean tally in this group is 10.25%...."

In part, this is a ballot spoilage issue. Investigative work by Richard Hayes Phillips further elucidates this specific problem.

[Time for change]

54. It's not just anecdotal -- It's also based on reports to EIRS

See post # 50

[Zynx]

55. That's all well and good, but I still don't see a low turnout.

At the end of the day, what matters is the vote total, and if there is anything abormal it is that the increase in Cleveland turnout was higher than the state as a whole.

[Time for change]

58. That is not true at all

See post 57

[L. Coyote]

59. Turnout is based on registered voters, and many voters were dropped in Cleveland

so there needs to be some accounting for the diminution of the number of remaining registered.

How low would the percentage be if voters had not been caged?
Did removing voters alter turnout % in just some areas?

The unofficial turnout in Ohio was % Cast = 69.86 vs. Cuyahoga 59.84% (official results for votes cast at polling places)

[Zynx]

64. The increase in turnout election to election was larger than statewide.

That has to be taken into account. Cleveland rose 28% versus 19% statewide as I posted earlier.

Also, in absolute #s:

Cleveland turnout
167,000 2004
130,000 2000

Where's the drop?

[L. Coyote]

75. Total voters statistics = vote shift from Dems to Bush

2000 Cuyahoga 1,010,726 voters - Bush 192,099 Gore 359,913 =
2004 Cuyahoga 1,005,807 voters - Bush 215,624 Kerry 433,262

I'm more concerned about vote-switching from Dems to Bush !

and the evidence of cross-voting.

	Bush		Dem		Votes		Voters
2004	2,796,147	2,659,664	5,574,476	7,979,639
2000	2,351,209	2,186,190	4,705,457	7,531,555

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[L. Coyote]

39. That is not all that is misunderstood about Cuyahoga in the OP

Not only were lines long (due to lack of sufficient voting machines) even after the massive voter purges, but the election fraud has nothing direct to do with central tabulation.

Ohio punch card voting relied on precinct chain of custody, with ballots lacking precinct markings! If the ballot was cast at the wrong precinct, or somehow was moved to the wrong precinct, the vote was altered by this unique Ohio form of ballot box stuffing. Many votes were switched from Kerry to Bush, proven by precinct level analysis. The votes count according to the ballot punches, and recount the same every time if still in the same precinct.

Central tabulators do not move ballots to the wrong precinct, people do.

There is a published analysis of the amount of Cuyahoga vote-switching online, and this analysis needs to be applied to other Ohio counties and previous elections too, especially 2000:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

" In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts six percent when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

........


Where Kerry cross-votes count for a specific third-party candidate,
Badnarik votes increase five-fold and Peroutka votes jump over nine-fold.

"The 4\4 subset consists of 27 identical locations, each with four precincts and four ballot orders. In this subset, the expectation prevails that precinct Kerry voting averages near the same. ..... When sorted by vote-switch probability, the 4\4 locations present about the same Kerry margin disparity seen Table 20 above, over 6% ... The three-fourths of precincts where a Kerry cross-vote can count for Bush (K-B P = 1/3) have a 6.29% lower Kerry margin. .... "

Download precinct_switching.ppt featuring vote-switching evidence.
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/precinct_switching.ppt

================
From the Conyers Report: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

"... we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior...."

[Time for change]

46. I'm aware of the ballot order rotation problem in Cleveland

I did extensive analysis of that and estimated that it probably cost Kerry about 10,000 net votes. But that has nothing to do with low turnout in Cleveland

[Zynx]

48. By no measure was turnout in Cleveland low. Compare it to comparable cities around the country.

If anything it was high.

[Time for change]

50. There were 150 reports to the national Electronic Incidence Reporting System (EIRS)

of long lines/waits in Cuyahoga County, with a very disproportionate number from Cleveland. That was the second highest among counties in the state, the only higher one being Franklin County, which had the notorious barrage of machine breakdowns. So, to say that Cleveland was comparable to other cities in the country is not the point. There has to be an explanation for how to reconcile the long lines throughout the city with a meager turnout.

[Zynx]

53. Once again, the turnout in Cleveland was not meager by any measure.

It was 60%. That's quite high. What were you expecting it to be? 80%? That's unreasonable.

[Time for change]

57. Actually, voter turnout in Cleveland was much lower than that

I mis-spoke when I said 60%.

Here's an article that does an extensive analsyis of voter turnout in 2004 and compares it with other major cities in the state. It indicates that it went from 57% in 2000 to 53% in 2004. Given the huge voting lines all over the city, I would think that 60-70% would be more reasonable.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eiZplooXg4oJ:www.electiontruth.org/lib/downloads/bookdocs/4-10_stealing_votes_in_cleveland.doc+%22voter+turnout%22+Cleveland+2004+election&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

[L. Coyote]

60. Those stats are unofficial. The official results are different.

For precinct voting, at 1432 precincts 1,003,435 voters cast 600,467 votes, for 59,8% turnout.

The variation in turnout on a precinct by precinct basis is more of a concern than the average.
The inner city precincts have a 9.75% stdev in turnout, and range from 14.59 to 82.32%

[Time for change]

61. You're talking about Cuyahoga County, not Cleveland, right?

Turnout in Cleveland was much lower than in Cuyahoga County.

[L. Coyote]

63. Cleveland is Cuyahoga County, of course.

There is a parallel between how ballot order/precincts were combined at locations and the neighborhoods in Cuyahoga County.
The analysis in the article I cite distinguishes the location variables, not the city boundary, but the groups are useful in addressing the question.

There is not a great difference, on average. That might change some with a distinct parameter, like the city boundary, to create the subsets, albeit not a great deal. I would not say "much lower" even though the stats show it is in fact several percent lower.

[Time for change]

70. But the turnout figures are very different in Cleveland than for the rest of Cuyahoga County

Also, Cleveland is much more heavily Democratic than the rest of Cuyahoga County. And it only constitutes about a third of the registered voters in the county.

[L. Coyote]

71. This has been quantified on a precinct basis, complete with latitude and longitude, plotted

onto maps, correlated with demographics like minority population, and is defined with refinement.
This was on DU back in 2004, posted by Joe Knapp with great map backgrounds on Excel scatterplots.

jmknapp - Dec-02-04 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x106743#117088
Certified Cuyahoga Results spreadsheet (Excel)

Uncounted Votes in Cuyahoga County" by R. H. Phillips. How many??
Posted by L. Coyote on Sun Dec-26-04 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=203&topic_id=196518

I would not draw that conclusion, based on the research.
Yes, different. Different in every precinct even.
So "very different" means what percentage, I guess?

Database of Official Results with Precinct Cross-Vote Probabilities
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/xls/cuyahoga_precincts.mdb - 912 Kb Access file.
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/xls/cuyahoga_probability.xls - Extended Analysis, Charts - 3.5 Mb Excel file.

[Zynx]

65. How is that possible when there were 37,000 more voters in 2004 than 2000?

The population sure as hell didn't rise.

[L. Coyote]

68. Surely some voters were disenfranchised by long lines, many more by other

factors, especially the vote-switching, changing Kerry votes to Bush votes by altering the precinct chain of custody.

IF there is just one thing to know about Ohio 2004, it is this:

A ballot cast for Kerry counts for Bush at the next precinct!

and recounts for Bush too, of course, once the precinct switch has happened!

So, voters who did survive the purges, and stood in the rain in long lines, then cast a vote for Kerry
may have actually vote for Bush, unlike those who did not vote!

Switched votes count twice, subtracting one from the Kerry column and adding one to the Bush column.

The net result in Ohio is due to a perfect storm of irregularities, carefully crafted by the Republicans fixing the election, and their sum is what produced the Bush margin in the official results. What is unknown is how the voters actually voted, and that applies to 2000 and other elections too!

For how long had the Rs fixed OHIO? Now there's a Masters thesis project!

[OnTheOtherHand]

86. yeah, I think Richard Hayes Phillips blew that

He is usually careful with numbers, although his interpretations can be weird.

But Leip's presidential atlas has these turnout figures:

2000
Cuyahoga County 574,782 / 1,010,726 = 56.9%
Cleveland 130,759 / 311,249 = 42.0%

2004
Cuyahoga County 673,777 / 1,005,807 = 67.0%
Cleveland 167,462 / 323,202 = 51.8%

So, as a percentage of registered voters, turnout both in Cleveland and in the entire county rose by about 10 points, if Leip has the right numbers. And the increase for Cleveland was proportionately larger (starting from a lower base), which may not have been inconsequential given the infrastructure.

Again, we can't say how high turnout in Cleveland should or could have been.

[L. Coyote]

93. This points to where the winning votes in Ohio lie waiting for 2008.

If Cleveland voters have an 85% turnout instead, add 100,000 votes!

Cleveland votes about 90% DEM!

[OnTheOtherHand]

98. 85% is _really_ hard to imagine... but...

certainly more Democratic votes could be had in Cleveland.

In Cleveland, there are generally about as many registered voters as there are adults -- which makes me think that the rolls aren't very clean.

[Time for change]

89. The comparison with 2000 is not the salient issue

53% turnout (52% according to OTOH's figures) was way below the rest of Ohio in 2004, as well as most of its major cities.

You apparently don't think that long voting lines all over the city mean much. They were the result of a monumental get out the vote effort in Cleveland. I don't think that's consistent with a voter turnout of 53%.

[L. Coyote]

92. Specific areas have specific problems and irregularities. Sometimes boundaries are

arbitrary and not related to a statistic difference in population.
Cleveland apparently also defines a quite distinct subset of voters.
This is an inner-city, minority area.

Again, Joe Knapp mapped these precinct statistics in 2004, in relation to several variables.
The details are more interesting than debating this with cross-talking generalities instead of cross-voting statistics.

[L. Coyote]

62. Where is that analysis? How did you arrive at that number?

From: http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

"In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts 6% when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

and, in a separate subset:

"In a subset of 47,404 votes, the Kerry-Bush margin shifts 6.3%
when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting."

"The three-fourths of precincts where a Kerry cross-vote can count for Bush ... have a 6.29% lower Kerry margin."

[Time for change]

73. I don't have the analysis

I was very excited about it at first. It looked at first as if ballot rotation issues cost Kerry about 20 thousand votes in Cuyahoga County. But then when I controlled for polling place it went down to 10 thousand or below. So I decided it wasn't worth posting or saving. Maybe that was the wrong decision, especially after all the work I put into it.

Anyhow, I can't be much more specific than that. You might want to ask OTOH about it, since we collaborated on that project together. Maybe he remembers more than I do, or saved some of the data.

Also, I didn't look at the problem in other punch card counties. So maybe there's a lot more in other counties. But my only point was that this ballot order rotation problems wouldn't affect reported turnout.

So, how many votes do you think that ballot order rotation cost Kerry in Cuyahoga County?

[L. Coyote]

76. I'll refer to this thread

OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
Jan-28-07 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x259620#263679

[Name removed]

81. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. which one?

I think you make a fair point about Cuyahoga, although there's no way of knowing what the turnout 'should' have been.

As for Baldwin, what exactly is the argument? Gundlach says it's an outlier, but it isn't; he claims that the slope is anomalous, but presents no evidence that it is. Is there something else?

[trof]

35. Credit Steve McConnell (Gulf Coast Newspapers) for article.

He's a friend of mine.
Very bright young man straight out of journalism school on his first job down here.

I worked with him on his coverage of county property tax issues and also our local watershed watch.

Unhappily, he left for his native Scranton, PA late last year and a job on the paper there.

[Octafish]

38. SPJ needs more like him.

So does our country.

[L. Coyote]

41. Some corrections based on other DU members version of events in Baldwin Co.

Gov. Siegelman also discussed the election theft in his interview.

The posts below are from June 2007: Abramoff and Kark Rove Linked to Prosecution of Ex-Alabama Governor and Campaign Finances
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1023111#1026347

symbolman - Jun-02-07 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1023111#1025944
10. My wife interviewed Siegelman a few years back, when we were working on a film about Fraudulent elections down there in Alabama, and they STOLE that election, it was a bellweather for the rest of the system, and we've got it all on film.

Riley and pals LOCKED down the courthouse (and I've been in there many times), kicked out ALL the Poll workers, media, etc, and then MOVED thousands of votes electronically from Siegelman's column to HIS. Tried to blame it on a lightning strike in one area, only problem is that there weren't 6500 PEOPLE living in that area, and NO OTHER NUMBERS MOVED.

It was and is the MOST OBVIOUS Voting Fraud ever seen, and it's a FACT. Siegelman went to bed as the winner, and woke up as the loser of the election. When he demanded a recount the corrupt fucks down there threw a Catch 22 at him. In order to Prove Fraud he needed to open the Box, but they wouldn't let him Open the Box, unless he could Prove there was FRAUD.

Cute, eh?

Baldwin county is in my opinion THE MOST CORRUPT Legal system in the united states, and I know first hand. Spent a little Time in their county jail, which has been compared to a South African Prison BY CONGRESS. Oddly enough, while my wife was interviewing Siegelman, I was in the SLAMMER, WHILE doing a FILM about Electronic Voting Fraud.

Small world, ain't it?

ROVE'S fingerprints are ALL OVER THIS. ......

demobabe - Jun-02-07
11. Yeah, the vote difference was blamed on a lightning strike...

...on a machine in Magnolia Springs, Alabama. Around 3,000 votes shifted from Siegelman to Riley. Few really odd things here:

1. The machine in question carried about 1,000 votes. Even if ALL 1,000 votes switched from Siegelman to Riley, you still don't have the number of votes for Riley to have won. Doesn't add up.

2. The totals on EVERY SINGLE other race in that election did not change. There was a ZERO difference. If there was a problem with one machine, this would cause the vote totals in ALL races to change. Lightning bolts don't target only one person.

3. The nature of the problem wasn't consistent with a power surge. Lightning bolts would not cause data to be manipulated. Destroyed an unusable is one possibility but not selective data corruption (once again, every race would be affected, not just Don Siegelman).

[L. Coyote]

42. VIDEO: Gov. Don Siegelman's version of events, plus more DU info.

VIDEOS: ***** Don Siegelman Speaks! ***** Parts I & II
from Feb-23-08: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2909551#2913386

orleans ***** Dec-17-07 ***** Don Siegelman Speaks!

PART I: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x76986
PART II: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x76995

"Here is some amazing video: a very candid interview with Don Siegelman, who spoke to Julie Sigwart of Take Back the Media on Sept. 13, 2004--months before the Governor was finally put away on trumped-up charges by the Alabama GOP.

"As he himself makes clear, Siegelman's ordeal began back in 2000, when he came out early on, and publicly, against the presidential bid of his fellow governor, George W. Bush, and backed Al Gore instead. It was a move that Karl Rove never did forget, and never would forgive, says Siegelman. ..."

======= ALSO there this post ==========
diva77 Mon Dec-17-07 ****** 4. ES&S tabulator used in Baldwin County in Nov. 2002 race
http://www.votersunite.org/info/content/mess-up_082304.asp

Voting Machine Mess-up Du Jour (Displayed 08/23/04)
Baldwin County, Alabama. November, 2002. ES&S.
Optical scan data packs malfunction.
Tabulation machine initially handed the gubernatorial election to the wrong candidate.*

Initial, unofficial results from Baldwin County showed that Democrat Don Siegelman garnered about 19,070 votes in the county, enough to give him a razor-thin victory over Republican challenger Bob Riley. The next morning, however, officials said those totals were inaccurate and certified returns giving Siegelman about 6,300 fewer votes -- enough to swing the election to Riley.
... Officials have traced the problem to a data pack from the Magnolia Springs voting location. They said the vote-counting machine there printed out accurate results when the polls closed at 7 p.m. But they said the cartridge, which resembles an eight-track cassette, gave bogus figures when it was plugged into the computer in Bay Minette.

... Kelley said a power surge at the precinct, static electricity or something else may have caused the glitch. He said technical experts at the company's computer lab in Rockford, Ill., may be able to determine the reason.

...He noted that at least three other counties experienced similar glitches on election night. But officials in Madison, Etowah and Barbour counties discovered and corrected the errors, in some cases by manually typing in vote totals.

* Voting snafu answers elusive. The Mobile Register. 28 Jan 2003. by Brendan Kirby, staff writer. Confirmed by VotersUnite! with Sharon Jerkins in the Baldwin County Elections office.

[PerfectSage]

67. Who stole those votes in Alabama in 2002? Don Siegelman names names--but the media doesn't want to..

...know.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_mark_cri_080410_who_stole_those_vote.htm

[Time for change]

97. There is virtually a conspiracy of silence by our corporate news media

regarding anything having to do with election theft.

[L. Coyote]

66. "Election Fraud in Baldwin County" reposted at donsiegelman.org

Fixed Elections?

Election Fraud in Baldwin County
http://donsiegelman.org/pages/topics/QUESTIONS/fixed_elections.html

...Sometime during the night after everyone else went home, a Riley
campaign worker by the name of Dan Gans - who had served as Riley’s
chief of staff both in Montgomery and Washington and went on to work
with Abramoff lobbying firm - set up a laptop computer in the Baldwin
County courthouse and changed the results, sources say.

In other words, he committed "electronic ballot stuffing" by changing the
vote totals digitally, subtracting 6,334 votes from the Siegelman column.

Gans bills himself as a Republican “voting technology expert" and brags
on a now defunct Website about his role in implementing "a state of the
art ballot security system that was critical to securing Governor-elect
Rileys narrow margin of victory (3,120 votes)."

Auburn University’s Professor James Gundlach studied the 2002 returns
in Baldwin County and found all clues pointing to the same result:

Someone is controlling the computer to produce the different results.
Once any computer produces different election results, any results
produced by the same equipment operated by the same people should
be considered too suspect to certify without an independently
supervised recount.

22. James H. Gundlach, A Statistical Analysis of Possible Electronic Ballot
Stuffing: The Case of the Baldwin County, Alabama Governor’s Race in 2002
(Apr. 11, 2003).

The irregularities identified by Gundlach are far more severe than those
which occurred in the Ukrainian presidential elections of October 31,
2004, which the United States Government denounced as fraudulent,
forcing a new vote which overturned the officially certified results of the
first round. In reaching these conclusions, the U.S. Government relied
on exactly the sort of sampling comparisons that Gundlach used in his
study. So how did the law enforcement authorities with responsibility for
this issue behave?

More = http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000509
Noel Hillman and the Siegelman Case
Scott Horton - July 13, 2007

[L. Coyote]

78. "Karl Rove in a Corner" by Joshua Green

This story needs to be attached to this discussion:

============
"Karl Rove in a Corner" by Joshua Green
November 2004 Atlantic Monthly - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

Karl Rove is at his most formidable when running close races, and his skills would be notable even if he used no extreme methods. But he does use them. His campaign history shows his willingness, when challenged, to employ savage tactics.

It is the close races that establish the reputations of great political strategists, and few have ever been closer than the 2000 presidential election. From the tumult of the lengthy recount, the absentee-ballot dispute, the charges of voter fraud, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court decision, George W. Bush emerged victorious by a margin of 537 votes in Florida—enough to elevate him to the presidency, and his chief strategist, Karl Rove, to the status of legend.

But the 2000 election was not Rove's closest race. .........

[Ellipsis]

90. Thank you. K&R n/t

[aggiesal]

102. I'm one of the Democratic representatives to witness the vote counting ...

on election night, here in San Diego.

Michael Vu is now the Assistant Registrar of Voters.
Before the February 5, 2008 primary, each precinct had
to display the election results (pre-tabulator counts)
at the precinct, and displayed for 48 hours.

The primary on Feb. 5, 2008, was the first time that
SD County precincts did not produce the results for
inspection, after the election. In fact, nothing was
posted at the precincts. So we had nothing to compare
thw pre-tabulator counts against.

It is my opinion Michael Vu has convinced ROV Deborah Seiler
not to produce what this article refers to as the pre-tabulator
counts.

Very frustrating.

[defendandprotect]

103. How many ways can they pull off a steal --- I think we're starting to know . ..

It just occurred to me that Sarasota and the 18,000 non-votes for Representative may have simply been
an incomplete hack --- in other words, the hacker may have started to realign the votes for Rep . . .
and then something happened. This was a gaping hole pointing to a steal. Still unresolved.

But coming back to the Siegelman case . . . this idea that some of this stuff can't entirely be covered up may be reflected in this quote below where they seem to be pretty damned concerned about a recount....

The Simpson affidavit says the conference call focused on how the Riley campaign could get Siegelman to withdraw his challenge. According to Simpson's statement, William Canary, a senior G.O.P. political operative and Riley adviser who was on the conference call, said "not to worry about Don Siegelman" because "'his girls' would take care of" the governor. Canary then made clear that "his girls" was a reference to his wife, Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Canary reassured others on the conference call that he had the help of a powerful pal in Washington. Canary said "not to worry that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman…

There also was talk in 2006 that the Democratic win was lots bigger -- a bigger majority -- and that the GOP kept that from happening. Someone mentioned this because the GOP is ALWAYS challenging when they lose -- and they didn't really challenge any of these elections and a lot were very close based on information others have related about the election. So the idea was they didn't challenge cause they knew they lost and they didn't want anyone taking a closer look at the votes.

So -- overall -- I think we should remember that they've been stealing a long time but it's not a perfect situation for them --- I think Randi Rhodes had it right in 2006 -- vote early/vote late.
Then, it's harder for them to figure out how much and where to steal---!!!

And to hide it --- !!!

[Time for change]

104. That's very disturbing

My experience with Michael Vu is that he repeatedly makes promises and then doesn't give them a second thought. He proved to be totally unhelpful in our quest to get pre-tabulator counts in Cuyahoga County. He was also the person in charge of fraudulent recount effort in Cuyahoga County. Some lower level workers were convicted of that, but isn't that the way it usually works. I'd really like to know what went on between him, Blackwell and Rove with respect to the Ohio election.

[L. Coyote]

105. Flash from the Past: Cuyahoga Co. Elections Director Resigns (OH)

The real concern in the scenario, the Chairman of the OH Republican Party,
was left in charge of Cuyahoga's elections and "arranged" Vu's departure payoff.

Lots more on this long compilation thread:

=======================================
Cuyahoga Co. Elections Director Resigns (OH)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2719564

February 6, 2007

CLEVELAND -- NewsChannel5 has confirmed that embattled elections chief in Cuyahoga County has resigned.

Executive director Michael Vu's ouster marks the end of a tense term that thrust Cuyahoga County and its voters in the national spotlight. Under Vu, the county weathered a botched primary election and convictions of two workers who mishandled the 2004 presidential recount.

Bob Bennett, chairman of the county Elections Board and head of the state Republican Party, said the board negotiated the departure with Vu.

"Yes, Michael is going to be leaving. But we need to have a transition period, and it's very important to us that Michael agrees to stay around and help with the (new) director, particularly having a new system, and get his feet on the ground," Bennett told The Associated Press. "We're pretty close to being finished."

Bennett would not say why the deal was being crafted or whose idea it was for Vu to leave.

http://www.newsnet5.com/politics/10943511/detail.html