Reply #69: That's what I thought at first too [View All]

[Maven]

However, that's not the issue they're focusing on.

The issue is actually the ratio of one candidate's votes to the other in each category.

In other words, take Clinton's machine counted votes and divide it by Obama's machine counted votes, and you get something like 1.125.

Now take Obama's hand counted votes and divide by Clinton's hand counted votes, and you also get 1.125 or something close.

They've just chosen to express this proportion as a percentage, by dividing each candidate's vote counts into the total Clinton+Obama in each category. That's my gripe with this OP--it's a deceptive way to present the data, to make it look like the same kind of flipping we saw in Ohio, when in fact that's not what those percentages represent at all.