O'Donnell LOST in Delaware!?! - By Mark Crispin Miller

[kpete]

And now it turns out that Christine O'Donnell's "win" in Delaware was just as iffy; or even iffier, since she "beat" Mike Castle--electronically, which is to say, unverifiably-- by 6+ points, while Mike Castle actually beat her, according to the paper-based absentee ballots, by over 10 points. (Brad Friedman goes into the details below.)

It's all quite weird, of course. But what's far weirder is the total silence on such matters by both parties and the media. Somehow the doubtfulness of Brown's "win," and now O'Donnell's, hasn't raised the faintest question as to whether the Tea-Baggers really represent electoral majorities. And so the Standard Narrative we all keep hearing now --the Tea-Party's booming, the GOP is badly split, the Democrats are in big trouble, blah blah blah--is just about as useful as the horoscope in this morning's New York Post.

I'd like to know what it would take to get the press to pay attention to these wild anomalies--not just the two I've noted here, but also Alvin Greene's preposterous "win" in South Carolina, and all the many others of this campaign season and the last ten years.

It's starting to appear as if there's nothing that will make the penny drop inside the heads of all those jounalists and pundits, who couldn't any longer blather on about the game of "politics" (as they imagine it) if they allowed themselves to look into the by-now-overwhelming evidence that this whole game is rigged--and will stay rigged until we, as a nation, finally stop ignoring all the signs of fraud, and start
discussing what to do about it.

MCM
more:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/O-Donnell-LOST-in-Delaware-by-Mark-Crispin-Mille-100921-898.html

[geek tragedy]

1. Absentee ballots are a much different group of voters

than those who turn out on election day. Apples and oranges.

[BeFree]

39. Really?

You have proof of that?

Just about every election that was assumed to be clean had nearly equal percentages of votes.

So.... if you have proof, any proof of what you are claiming: "much different group of voters", you just might become famous.

[Mister Ed]

45. Minnesota Senate 2008 would provide insight

The Franken/Coleman election was unique in that each and every one of the ballots cast was completed by hand, and then carefully, individually inspected in full public view.

Can someone tell us how the absentee vote compared with the machine-counted vote in that election? The information must be available. Of course, being a single case, it would be statistically insignificant, and would not prove or disprove the notion that absentee voters are a different breed. Still, it would provide a glimpse of insight.

[mistertrickster]

48. I've seen it happen in two races for state house in KS. I was part of

a recount based on differences in AB and poll results in fact.

We found no problems . . . everything checked out 100 percent.

[CreekDog]

51. Don't act surprised...happens all the time in California

and that's comparing paper ballots to paper absentee ballots (they look the same you see).

SF Mayor's race, Gavin Newsom won absentees and Matt Gonzalez (Green) won election day...Newsom won overall.

In 2008 primary, Barack Obama was far closer on election day voting, while Hillary Clinton swamped him in early (absentee) votes.

For decades California's absentee ballots have been far more conservative than election night returns, the gap only narrowing in recent years as California's vote by mail greatly expanded and made the absentee electorate more like the election day electorate.

Your hostile response to a completely accurate statement about absentee v. election day voters is not based on fact.

[CreekDog]

55. PROOF

1982 CA Governor's race:

Tom Bradley wins at the polls, George Deukmejian wins the absentees --Tom Bradley loses overall.

Well documented.

Republicans frequently win absentee vote in California with Democrats winning at the polls on Election Day. Same with our ballot measures which frequently differ in the same way.

[11 Bravo]

41. And you offer up this little nugget of wisdom based on your vast knowledge of ... what?

[geek tragedy]

46. .

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/opinion/pollpositions/main4205467.shtml

Also, GOTV efforts by the party machine often stress early voting. The party machine was behind Castle here.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

58. You know, Bravo, it wouldn't hurt for you to use the google...

...before you embarrass yourself making a post full of condescending arrogance that demands proof for a well-known political fact.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[L0oniX]

56. AB voter here ...and damn proud of it!

[xchrom]

2. it's a bubble of silence on this stuff. nt

[valerief]

3. Yeah, but one whisper of election fraud and you get "conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory" by the,

ahem, the, uh, "insincere" "dems" here.

[mistertrickster]

49. We had election fraud in Florida in 2000. That is established fact.

Look at how the over-votes (those who voted for Al Gore and wrote in his name as well) were not counted, even though Florida's "intent of the voter" clause clearly makes them legal.

But that doesn't mean that every close election involving electronic voting machines has been thrown.

[truebrit71]

4. It still baffles me that in a country where you can get free shit if you are not given a receipt...

...for purchases, doesn't DEMAND at the very least, the same for someting infintely more valubale, their vote...

I know why the presstitutes don't cover it, but I am amazed that Johnny Voter hasn't been up in arms about it...

[Frustratedlady]

5. Is it not a good idea to vote by absentee ballot?

I always vote with absentee ballots so there is a hard copy of my vote. It isn't tallied?

I don't get it.

[derby378]

6. When I raised objections to using touchscreen machines during Early Voting...

...some of my fellow Democrats said it was the only way to truly capitalize on Democratic voters whose jobs or schedules might prevent them from casting their votes on Election Day proper.

And it does look like our county elections board is trying to keep watch over the machines we do have. I've had one opportunity to alert our elections supervisor to potential problems with our touchscreens that he was previously unaware of.

That said, I prefer paper ballots. They're verifiable, and what good is an election if you can't honestly count the votes?

[eridani]

44. "Touch screen" and "DRE" are NOT synonyms!

There is no reason, ever, why a vote should be recorded electronically. However, touch screens could be used as interfaces only, with the product being a paper ballot that is tabulated separately along with all the other paper ballots. If the tallying is opscan it should, of course, be subject to mandatory hand count audits.

[NeedleCast]

7. People should really stop trying to invalidate O'Donnell's win

As she will get crushed in the general, while a more moderate Republican would stand a much better chance.

[JuniperLea]

11. That's probably why the left is silent on the matter...

Shame on everyone for not looking into this deeper on principle.

[onenote]

15. probably silent because there is nothing to look into

The fact that O'Donnell got 3000 more machine votes than Castle while getting around 40 fewer absentee votes proves zilch. Or, to put it in perspective, do you think that Beau Biden stole the Delaware attorney general race from the repub in 2006? After all, he got 52.7 percent of the machine votes, but only got 48 percent of the absentee votes.

[NeedleCast]

16. I understand what you're saying on principal

However, as Onenote pointed out below:

"There were over 56,000 machine counted votes (29,000 plus for O'Donnell and 26,000 plus for Castle) but only around 1500 absentee ballots (820 for Castle and 679 for O'Donnell), yet folks really think that the relative proportions prove voter fraud?"

While I agree on principal that voter fraud should be investigated, I'm not sure in this case that there's any grounds for it.

[truckin]

24. It is "election fraud" if the machines were manipulated and "voter

fraud" if an individual voter votes twice, or a dead voter votes, etc. It is an important distinction.

[PRETZEL]

25. I don't think you can make a connection based on what we know

Was there any indication that absentee ballots were heavier in one area than another. If absentee ballots were heavier in areas that O'Donnell didn't do as well then that would be consistent with Castle getting more absentee ballots. Same would hold true if in areas where O'Donnell did better and absentee ballots were less then yes it's quite possible for this type of anamoly.

[truckin]

26. Fair points all. But consider this, if all your assumptions go against

O'Donnell there is no way to see if the vote was tabulated correctly. NO WAY POSSIBLE! Does this concern you?

[PRETZEL]

31. I'm not sure about the assumptions I'm making

I don't think it's that big of an assumption to think that Castle did better in some parts of the state and O'Donnell did better in others. Voter turnout and proportion of absentee votes in relation to electronic votes should be consistent and all I was saying that absent these figures, I don't think we can really say that just because Castle got more absentee votes that the electronic vote count should be viewed as inaccurate.

I think would be best to see voter turnout by district and then compare it to absentee ballots in order to get a better guage on it.

[PRETZEL]

33. double post n/t

[drm604]

20. If (note that I said IF) the vote was rigged

then it could also be rigged in the general. I think that's what people are concerned about.

[Stevepol]

37. If the same machines are used to count the votes, why would she lose?

[democrat_patriot]

8. O'Donnells website had her a winner 3 days before election.

It was on Rachel Maddow's show. The homepage had an article "Victory in Delaware".

Sure it's nothing......

[onenote]

9. bogus, nonsensical use of data

There were over 56,000 machine counted votes (29,000 plus for O'Donnell and 26,000 plus for Castle) but only around 1500 absentee ballots (820 for Castle and 679 for O'Donnell), yet folks really think that the relative proportions prove voter fraud?

If that's the case, then I guess the primary election for the Democratic nominee for 24th District state representative also was fraudulent, since the winner got 71 percent of the 800 plus machine votes cast, but lost the absentee ballot count by a margin of two to one. Oh, the fact that there were only 6 absentee votes cast, 2 for the winner and four for the loser? Apparently not important.

Or maybe we can go back to 2008 and demand and investigation of how the Democratic primary election was "stolen" from Hillary Clinton since she got 27.8 percent of the machine counted ballots (compared to Obama's 34.9 percent), but "won" the election since she got 46.5 percent of the absentee ballots, while Obama only got 40.8 percent.

Those championing the cause of election reform don't do themselves or anyone else any favors when they make arguments like the one cited in the OP.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. +1

[truckin]

13. What's bogus and nonsesical is the fact that this country still

uses electronic voting machines where the results cannot verified.

[onenote]

17. I'm not defending electronic voting. I am criticizing bogus arguments

that the vote spread among absentee votes proves who really won an election.

As I said, it doesn't do the cause of election reform any good to make stupid arguments like the one in the OP.

[truckin]

19. The authors (MCM and Bradblog) did not say this was "proof" of

election fraud but it is a piece of evidence that could spark an investigation or at least a mention by the press. Unfortunately, an investigation is impossible with this type of voting machine and that should enrage every citizen in this country.

[onenote]

22. This is what MCM said, in a piece entitled "O'Donnell LOST in Delaware" (his caps)

Pretty unequivocal statement. Plus, his article starts with the following paragraph:

"Apparently, Christine O'Donnell's "stunning upset victory" in Delaware was yet another stroke of electronic magic--just like Scott Brown's "stunning upset victory" in Massachusetts in February."

While later he equivocates a bit, characterizing O'Donnell's win as "iffy", the clear message in the title of his post and his first sentence was that O'Donnell didn't really win and the evidence for that is the result of the absentee ballotting.

By the way, the question mark at the end of the title in the OP is not in MCM's blog piece.

And as for Brad, his article is equally unequivocal in its title: Castle Defeats O'Donnell in Delaware

[truckin]

23. The title of his post is definitely an attention grabber to get you

to read it. I don't read the rest of what you quote as him saying it is "proof" but whatever.

I believe that Brad summed it up well in his article.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8073#more-8073

[JuniperLea]

29. I agree... and I'm a huge supporter of reading articles in their entirety

Before bashing them. That's just stupid.

[Stevepol]

38. Brad qualified all his assertions. The headline was just for show. Note this:

Here's what Brad says in summing it up. After stating the discrepancey between the paper ballots and the electronic vote counting machines, here's what he says:

That said, while we've seen examples of similar disparities between paper-based absentee results and electronically cast results before (the unknown Alvin Greene's "victory" over Judge Vic Rawl in South Carolina's recent Democratic U.S. Senate primary comes to mind) there are logical-ish reasons --- as there always are, in every election --- to justify O'Donnell's computer-reported "victory" yesterday.

As we noted in response to a reader in comments on yesterday's Delaware item, O'Donnell received a late endorsement from Sarah Palin on September 9th, just 5 days before the election. That brought with it a surge of last-minute support from the "Tea Party" and others.

Moreover, the number of absentee ballots cast as a percentage of the total votes was quite small (1,499 absentee ballots, versus 56,083 cast on Election Day), so one should be careful of reading too much into those numbers as the bulk of absentee ballots were likely cast prior to O'Donnell's endorsements surge.

Those factors, and certainly others, could certainly explain the nearly-reversed percentages as reportedly cast on Election Day on the e-voting systems, versus those seen on the paper-based, human-countable, absentee ballots.

But the point here is: Who knows? Absolutely nobody does. I don't. You don't. O'Donnell doesn't. Castle doesn't. The State of Delaware doesn't. Even the manufacturer of the e-voting system, Danaher/Guardian, would be unable to prove who actually won or lost the race one way or another

. . . snip

That's a nice, fair summation it seems to me. He grants that the discrepancy may mean nothing in this case, gives some of the reasons used by others to probve that, then concludes with an obvious statement of fact: nobody knows or can know the results.

But for those who doubt that these discrepancies could actually be signs of real vote manipulation, he also mentions the Greene case in SC. I have to say I can see no way that Greene won that election from what I've read. He didn't even campaign, nobody knew him, etc. etc. etc. etc. And in every precinct, the paper had the other Dem winning by about the same percentage that the machines had Greene winning. At some point, since there's no other way to determine who actually wins an election, people may just have to rely on common sense. In cases where there's no way to knonw what the result is, common sense is a more trustworthy crutch to lean on than blind faith.

[JuniperLea]

28. Since when does one judge an article by the title...

The book by the cover?

I think that's silly.

[JuniperLea]

27. It's not a stupid argument...

And an eye catching title does not a story make. It does do good to call attention to the spread, and the inability to check.

I say your argument is stupid.

[onenote]

30. it really is a stupid argument

Think about it logically. The underlying point, with which I don't disagree, is that you can't verify the results of an election that relies on unverifiable machine counted ballots.

That's true. And it doesn't take the statistically unreliable results of a handful of absentee ballots to advance that argument. Indeed, pointing to the absentee ballots, which can be explained by a variety of factors and which, at least looking at Delaware over the past several election cycles, are virtually never statistically proportionate to the machine ballots, sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

In short, its a throwaway argument that is used to cast doubt on the results of the machine counted ballots when that doubt would exist no matter what the breakdown of hand counted absentee ballots.

Put it this way -- if the total breakdown of absentee ballots had cut, percentage-wise, exactly the same for O'Donnell as the machine ballots, would that make the machine count any more reliable?

Of course not.


edited to make clear i AGREE that machine counts are unverifiable and that there needs to be election reform.

[JuniperLea]

32. That never happens...

You really should read BradBlog and other sites that keep track of both numbers in almost all races.

[onenote]

35. let me ask you this

If a candidate gets zero absentee votes, does that mean that any and all machine votes he gets are suspect? If there is a relationship, your answer should be yes. But the data for the election cycles since 2006 in Delaware, for both repubs and Democrats, indicates that sometimes a candidate gets a higher percentage of absentee votes than machine cast votes, sometimes lower and, indeed, sometimes a canddidate "wins" the absentee vote while losing the machine vote and sometimes its the other way around.

The one thing that we know is that we can't verify the machine totals in ANY of those instances, no matter what the outcome of the absentee balloting. Which is why bringing absentee ballots into the discussion is pointless and doesn't advance the argument.

[BeFree]

42. well

If you take all the verifiable votes Castle Beats O'Donnell.

Simple.

[mistertrickster]

50. Ouch! Statistical evidence only makes people whose minds are made up mad.

Once one buys into the concept that "all our elections are fraudulent," no amount of evidence is going to sway one.

ON EDIT: But good job showing the hollowness of the idea that AB's must reflect at-the-poll voting . . .

[glitch]

57. Likewise "Once one buys into the concept that 'none of our elections are fraudulent,' no amount of

evidence is going to sway one."

Better to actively support verifiable elections, and until then simply investigate anomolies, don't you agree?

[onenote]

59. its possible to support verifiable elections without setting up a strawman argument

suggesting that whenever the absentee vote doesn't conform to the machine vote its evidence that there is something "iffy" about the result of the machine vote. The machine vote is not verifiable. That's the relevant fact.

[glitch]

62. "The machine vote is not verifiable. That's the relevant fact." Agreed. Add easily riggable.

Just want to make sure that one "strawman" is not allowed to dismiss the entire very crucial subject.

[snooper2]

63. You didn't even have to do that much research, just look at the source

dungeon worthy site...

[Cognitive_Resonance]

12. Absentee voters tend to be party establishment

Speaking of absentee voting, it is worthwhile to encourage fellow Democrats to take advantage of absentee or early voting wherever possible. Get those votes "in the bank". You never know what might arise on election day (work conflicts, bad weather, family emergency, car trouble, etc.). Let's get it done.

[Blue Owl]

14. Is anyone fucking paying attention to this?

Apparently stealing elections is nothing to get worked up over -- but everything leading up to those elections causes massive coronary ruptures on both sides of the fence.

I don't get it.

[BzaDem]

36. No, just like no one is paying attention to "Bush caused 9/11" theories. n/t

[BeFree]

43. Yep

I see you speak for no one.

[CreekDog]

53. You've been corrected on your post near the top there

Did you read those?

[CreekDog]

52. Ugh...all anger no substance

Absentee voters are more likely to be homeowners, to be older, to be more conservative, and so forth.

And political campaigns have long focused on getting absentee voters to mail in their ballots so that the election is won on absentee margins even if it's lost on election day itself.

Quit freaking out that this is so impossible. Look into it before freaking out, PLEASE!

And if you don't, I'm tuning out any rantings you might make about 9/11.

[ProSense]

18. So the Republicans stole an election from themselves?

This is getting ridiculous.

[truckin]

21. Maybe there is a "Tea-Party" programmer in the voting machine

company. This isn't about Republicans or Democrats stealing elections. It's about using a method of voting that is easy to manipulate and impossible to detect in the country that is supposed to be the beacon of democracy. Yet most people see nothing wrong with this or are not aware of the potential problems.

[spanone]

34. the teagaggers stole it from the republicans.

[mzteris]

40. Shades of Greene?

as in Alvin?

[mistertrickster]

47. Difference between AB's and those who go to polls is a real difference.

It is not a surprise that a candidate can win with AB's and lose at the polls.

AB voters are smarter . . . they obviously plan ahead better. Also, a well-run machine like Castle's would know how to encourage his voters to vote AB. A reactive "I'm-not-Washington" candidate wouldn't.

A difference between poll numbers and AB numbers does not surprise me, even though I hate electronic voting machines without a paper trail.

*On edit: AB = Advance Ballot

[Cognitive_Resonance]

54. Bingo. It's a good reminder for Democrats to take full advantage of early/absentee voting

Get those votes "in the bank".

[lunatica]

60. So the Republican party is rigging elections against themselves?!

If the teabaggers are winning who the hell is doing the rigging? That simply doesn't make sense.

[truckin]

64. See Post 21. Maybe there is a "Tea-Party" programmer in the

voting machine company. However, that's not the point. We should not be using electronic voting machines that are easy to manipulate and impossible to detect any rigging. Wouldn't you feel better if you could prove that the paper ballots were an anomaly and end this debate? With this system that is impossible and that is a big problem.

[lunatica]

67. Paper ballots are much better!

I hate the computer voting! I vote absentee, but even then there's no telling. Like they say, it's not who votes but you counts the votes that matters.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Perhaps O'Connell peaked late and Castle had had a better organized absentee ballot program

[SoCalDem]

65. Older, wealthier people often vote absentee

those people may also tend to be republican (or so we have been told)..

People who travel a lot often vote absentee

The poorer schlubs who have little or no time off and whose lives are pretty cut and dried, are the ones who vote before or after work..at the polls.

[helderheid]

66. Kick