Curious Lieberman vote tally, posted on evote.com

[IntiRaymi]

2006 Vote count:

http://www.evote.com/?q=elections2006/CT

2000 Vote count:

http://www.evote.com/?q=elections2000/CT

In both instances the opponent got EXACTLY 448,077 votes.

This can't be a fucking coincidence.

on edit. Removed headline. Stupid me.

[onenote]

1. any other evidence?

[Skinner]

2. I'm guessing that it is probably an error by evote.com

Perhaps they are accidentally pointing to the database entry for 00 results on the 06 page. Or someone copied it wrong when they were entering the data.

Next step: Go to the official results posted by the connecticut government, and see what they list. I suspect they will be different from what evote has.

[IntiRaymi]

3. I hope so. nt

[Skinner]

6. Official Results from Connecticut

2006
Lieberman 604,090
Lamont 480,481
Schlesinger 118,296

http://www.statementofvote-sots.ct.gov/StatementOfVote/WebModules/ReportsLink/USSenCDView.aspx?Parameter=11/07/2006-General

2000
Lieberman 828,902
Giordano 448,077

http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVIII/SOV00ussenate.htm

CONCLUSION: The results on evote are wrong.

[hlthe2b]

12. Certainly no CT mandate....

almost even in those voting against Lieberman, as for him...:shrug:

[KingFlorez]

4. Here it comes

I knew this was going start when Lamont lost.

[DODI]

5. CT SOS number for Lamont is 480,481 -

http://www.statementofvote-sots.ct.gov/StatementOfVote/WebModules/ReportsLink/USSenCDView.aspx?Parameter=11/07/2006-General

[IntiRaymi]

7. Thank you.

I've been digging around like mad these past hour for results...

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. What you say fits the pattern I noticed. Didn't the media proclaim

how Liebermannikin was sharply down in the polls; then, as if by magic, there was a sudden tutrn around in the reporting of his support.

A similar pattern to the one that occurred in the Virginia Senate race, and I believe also in the Montana Senate race.

All three could easily be viewed as their last hurrah. Worth risking being found out as fraudsters. Given that they are such desperadoes, even in such a fraud-suspicious climate. Just to hang onto the Senate.

Remember how the media studiously avoided the notion that the cons stood to lose the Senate as well. And that was the same in the UK, where the neocons' friends still rule on both sides of the house. Nothing like a compliant MSM preparing the way.

[IntiRaymi]

9. Yes, but those are not the official results I posted.

I was dumb enough to post this, originally, with an idiotic headline. The folks at e-vote.com ought to keep a better handle on their databases.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. Is e-vote a genuinely non-partisan organisation?

[IntiRaymi]

11. I am guessing not.

But I would err on the side of stupidity, out of caution.

I've learned a lesson here.
:argh:

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. Well, it's interesting, I must say. Perish the thought that the

curious numerical correction was a hasty after-thought to their cover tracks!

[IntiRaymi]

14. What "curious numerical correction" are you referring to?

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. I thought you indicated that the figure you cited in your original

post had been corrected by e-vote. But I probably shouldn't have bought into this, as I'm virtually innumerate. And illiterate even in relation to numbers.

[IntiRaymi]

16. No, no, no....

e-vote had identical results for the losing opponent in both Senate races, 2000 and 2006.
The suspected error is that of some sloppy coding on the part of the database maintainers at e-vote.

[Dick Diver]

17. Can you cite a single poll

in the general election wherein "the media proclaimhow Liebermannikin was sharply down in the polls; then, as if by magic, there was a sudden tutrn around in the reporting of his support."

Just curious, as it's my recollection that Lieberman was consistently leading, from day 1, by 10-17 points.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Maybe you are right. Do you recall reading anything on here

prior to "day 1" in line with what I had thought?

I've probably just conflated his putative popularity changes with those of the other two. Or was Burns always too close to call?

[Dick Diver]

18. This is (at least) the third time

this has been posted today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2960596

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2960758

Perhaps if we say it often enough, we can convince ourselves that Lamont actually won.

[autorank]

20. Yeah but the graphics are better. I'll take it down since the consensus

is that its false. Now what's the probability of that.