FLORIDA STUDY: A Statistical Nightmare

[tinfoil_beret]

After staring at Florida for a few days, playing with formulas
and charts and adding demographics and historical data, I
noticed some peculiarities in the charts. Looking closer
revealed a definite pattern. Math wizards, put your thinking
caps on and figure the statistical improbability of this
happening by chance.

Of the 12 Florida counties with the highest numbers of
registered voters, seven of these counties have Kerry
percentages very similar to Gore's percentages for these
counties, within plus or minus one percent. I find this very
strange because these seven counties have vote counts from
114% to 143% of the votes cast in the same counties in 2000.

If you consider that other-party candidates had less votes
combined than in 2000 combined in each of these counties, this
would mean that Kerry grabbed all of the votes from the
previous election plus all of the THOUSANDS OF NEW VOTES minus
the votes cast for other candidates in virtually identical
proportions as Gore did in 2000. Furthermore, two of these
counties had votes for Bush in percentages vey similar to his
percentages in 2000 in those two counties, giving him
virtually identical margins (within plus or minus .5 percent)
in those two counties! HOW IMPROBABLE IS THAT?

You might think they saw the numbers, didn't like them,
plugged in the percentages for the counties with high
populations from the previous election and started playing
with them until they had a victory of 5%. (The final margin
was 5.00640620%. How much closer could it be?)

Also, consider that the 2004 results on Florida's election
site is the first general election going back to at least
1988, and probably further, that doesn't have the absentee
totals listed at the bottom. Did they count the absentees?
After they jiggled the numbers, if they added the absentees to
the individual counties it could account for the jitter in the
numbers.

Does anybody think this pattern could happen by chance?

Miami-Dade       
           2000    2004     Difference
Republican 289533  361095   71562    
Democrat   328808  409732   80924    
3rd party    7108    3899   -3209    
Total      625449  774726  149277    
       
% Rep       46.29%   46.61%  0.32%    
% Dem       52.57%   52.89%  0.32%    
% 3rd party  1.14%    0.50% -0.63%    
       
New ballots           149277     
Increase in ballots   123.87%     
       
              2000   New   Subtotal   2004  Difference  
R 2000 share 289533  69103  358636   361095   2459  
D 2000 share 328808  78477  407285   409732   2447
                                               ----
                                              4906  
                            3rd party change -3209
                                             -----  
                                              1697 
                                              0.47% of votes
       
       
Hillsborough       
            2000    2004   Difference
Republican 180760  245576    64816    
Democrat   169557  214132    44575    
3rd party    9978    3514    -6464    
Total      360295  463222   102927    
       
% Rep       50.17%  53.01%    2.84%    
% Dem       47.06%  46.23%   -0.83%    
% 3rd party  2.77%   0.76%   -2.01%    
       
New ballots  102927     
Increase in ballots  128.57%     
       
              2000   New  Subtotal  2004  Difference  
R 2000 share 180760 51638  232398  245576   13178  
D 2000 share 169557 48438  217995  214132   -3863  
                                            -----
                                             9315  
                          3rd party change  -6464  
                                            -----
                                             2851 
                                            1.16% of votes
       
Pinellas       
            2000    2004  Difference
Republican 184825  225686   40861    
Democrat   200630  225460   24830    
3rd party   13017    4211   -8806    
Total      398472  455357   56885    
       
% Rep       46.38%  49.56%   3.18%    
% Dem       50.35%  49.51%  -0.84%    
% 3rd party  3.27%   0.92%  -2.34%    
       
New ballots           56885     
Increase in ballots  114.28%     
       
              2000   New   Subtotal   2004  Difference  
R 2000 share 184825  26385  211210   225686   14476  
D 2000 share 200630  28642  229272   225460   -3812  
                                              -----
                                              10664  
                            3rd party change  -8806
                                              -----
                                               1858 
                                               0.82% of votes
       
Orange       
            2000    2004     Difference
Republican 134517  192539      58022    
Democrat   140220  193354      53134    
3rd party    5388    2151      -3237    
Total      280125  388044     107919    
       
% Rep       48.02%  49.62%      1.60%    
% Dem       50.06%  49.83%     -0.23%    
% 3rd party  1.92%   0.55%     -1.37%    
       
New ballots          107919     
Increase in ballots  138.53%     
       
              2000   New   Subtotal   2004  Difference  
R 2000 share 134517 51823   186340   192539   6199  
D 2000 share 140220 54020   194240   193354   -886
                                              ----
                                              5313  
                           3rd party change  -3237  
                                             -----
                                              2076 
                                              1.08% Of votes

Duval       
           2000    2004     Difference
Republican 152098  220190   68092    
Democrat   107864  158610   50746    
3rd party    4674    2261   -2413    
Total      264636  381061  116425    
       
% Rep       57.47%  57.78%  0.31%    
% Dem       40.76%  41.62%  0.86%    
% 3rd party  1.77%   0.59% -1.17%    
       
New ballots          116425     
Increase in ballots  143.99%     
       
              2000   New   Subtotal   2004  Difference  
R 2000 share 152098  66915  219013    220190   1177  
D 2000 share 107864  47454  155318    158610   3292
                                               ----
                                               4469  
                            3rd party change  -2413  
                                               2056 
                                               0.93% of votes
       
Lee       
            2000    2004  Difference
Republican 106141  144176   38035    
Democrat    73560   93860   20300    
3rd party    4676    2631   -2045    
Total      184377  240667   56290    
       
% Rep       57.57%   59.91%  2.34%    
% Dem       39.90%   39.00% -0.90%    
% 3rd party  2.54%    1.09% -1.44%    
       
New ballots           56290     
Increase in ballots  130.53%     
       
              2000   New   Subtotal   2004  Difference  
R 2000 share 106141 32405    138546  144176   5630  
D 2000 share  73560 22458     96018   93860  -2158
                                             -----
                                              3472  
                           3rd party change  -2045
                                              ----
                                              1427
                                              0.99% Of votes
       

Sarasota       
            2000   2004  Difference
Republican 83100  104692  21592    
Democrat   72853   88442  15589    
3rd party   4989    2518  -2471    
Total     160942  195652  34710    
       
% Rep      51.63%  53.51%  1.88%    
% Dem      45.27%  45.20% -0.06%    
% 3rd party 3.10%   1.29% -1.81%    
       
New ballots           34710     
Increase in ballots  121.57%     
       
              2000   New   Subtotal   2004  Difference  
R 2000 share 83100  17922   101022   104692   3670  
D 2000 share 72853  15712    88565    88442   -123
                                              ----
                                              3547  
                           3rd party change  -2471  
                                             -----
                                              1076 
                                              1.03% Of votes

All vote counts came from the Florida election site at
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/
       

[skids]

1. You're up too late.

And so am I. Don't worry I'll check back and give my thoughts and a
kick after a snooze.

[tinfoil_beret]

4. Ah... So sleepy... n/t

[berniew1]

14. Similar Fla. analysis found big shift to Bush in big touchscreen counties

I did an analysis of the 2000 and 2004 vote in Florida by county in comparison to the registrations by party from 2000 to 2004. The analysis showed some very strange patterns in the big touchscreen counties like Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsboro and Orange. My analysis is somewhat similar to yours. Although the Dems had a more active registration drive and got a lot more new Dem voters, there wasn't much increase in Dem votes compared to huge increase in Repub votes for small increases in registrations.

Analysis at www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html

[tinfoil_beret]

23. I considered polling methods, too.

I just didn't have a county breakdown readily available, and I was more concerned about making these findings coherent and available. I still need to reconcile those percentages, as they show the ratio of the extra ballots to the 2004 totals instead of correlating to the aforementioned shifts. The report still shows the blatant pattern; I just want to make it correct. Then I'll look at polling methods and then possibly other states in question. I still have some work ahead of me.

[truehawk]

47. Tinfoil, you might find it helpful to read Votescam

Google for it,

The first 5 chapters are on line.

[tinfoil_beret]

53. I just skimmed part of one chapter.

I noticed that the author alleges election manipulation all the way back to 1988. This allegation correlates with my observations concerning one-percent-democratic-shifts.

In the '92 Florida election, George H.W. Bush's bid for a second term, Florida had 21 counties with this pattern: Duval, Volusia, Lee, Manatee, Escambia, St. Lucie, Okaloosa, Clay, Citrus, Putnam, Jackson, Levy, Suwanee, Hendry, Bradford, Washington, Baker, Holmes, Hardee, Gilchrist, Liberty. You might think they applied the percentages for the Democratic candidates from 1988 to 1992!

In '92 you had the Perot effect, in which large numbers defected from their parties to support Perot. The pattern in Florida would suggest that in these 21 counties 100% of those defectors came from the Republican voter pool. Can anyone believe that? I don't.

[Maraya1969]

2. Let me guess

You are saying that the thousands of new votes plus the third party votes that probably went toward Kerry ended up with a Bush win? When most of the new votes were thought to be going toward kerry?


Also the % of the Kerry votes stayed the same while the Bush % went up. Which is improbable since most 3rd part votes should have went for Kerry also.

So someone manipulated the votes to give Bush a slight lead to win even though most new votes and 3rd party votes should have gone to Kerry. And they kept the win at 5% to make it seem close.

How am I doing?

Also, how can we prove this without a re-count?

[tinfoil_beret]

3. You got it!

Actually, they could have split the third-party votes by the same proportions and just added the absentees. (The federal absentee ballots from prior elections in Florida tended to lean Republican.

It seems very peculiar that the Democratic percentage stayed virtually the same for seven of the twelve counties with the highest numbers of registered voters. I've read that the Democrats did much better registering new voters in Southern Florida. Also, the Republican gains matching so closely to the third-party losses in these counties seems highly improbable! The odds of all of these variables converging to give the incumbent almost exactly a 5% victory must be infinitesimally small!

I would think that if someone wanted to manipulate it they would choose a number small enough not to raise any red flags and large enough to discourage a recount. Picking such a round number of 5% seems like a poor choice for a margin though, when they could have let a computer pick a random number between five and six percent. That number is just too close to any even 5%.

You can't PROVE it with or without a recount, because Florida election policies make accurate recounts impossible. Considering the monkey business allegedly uncovered recently by BBV regarding the allegedly falsified poll tapes and considering the fact that the DRE vapor-vote machines don't have original ballots for counting, a recount might be quite futile.

What can we do about it? I don't know. I doubt these numbers would represent overwhelming evidence, though I consider it prima facie. I just don't know.

[NJCher]

5. your discovery is quite fascinating

Makes sense to me (5%)


Cher

[flyarm]

45. reply to ..you got it!!

a reply to your statement...
"Actually, they could have split the third-party votes by the same proportions and just added the absentees. (The federal absentee ballots from prior elections in Florida tended to lean Republican."

i am from pinellas..and i can tell you there was such a huge push for dems to vote absentee,..because of the fear of fraud by the machines, we began that push very early on..and we had huge blocks of absentee votes..( the dems that is)
we sent out record numbers in my county of absentee ballot requests..i worked at kerry headquarters, and kerry sent down field reps specifically just to do the data and keep impecable records on this process..kerry sent down hired canvassers just to go door to door to get people to fill out applications for absentee ballots..we even had lots of cell phones to call people who we filled out applications to make sure the people got them and if they wanted them picked up by kerry field folks...
we daily entered info on the absentee ballot applications into huge data bases..we checked them over singly..with the soe lists we had on computers...many a day i would check these applications over with the soe list , and enter the data for j=kerrys data base..and i would be doing it 15 hours straight..we kept incredible records!! if there were mistakes on peoples application we sent canvassers back to the peoples homes to make the corrections! it was a huge process and undertaking!

one thing that was suspect was the soe didnt put on many of the envelopes the number of stamps nessesary to mail the ballots in which caused many problems at the post office..we were encouraging that we pick them up and hand delever them, and we did alot of that...but it became alarming days before the election when we were calling people in specific areas we were going to be in ,with people to pick them up..we were hearing that some unknown people were going to these same homes ..and telling the people they were dems to pick them up..when we had no one at that time in that area to pick them up..and whoever was picking them up had no dem i.d...this was very alarming to us!! we never found out who it was, we asked people to call soe and see if their ballots had been turned in..but after election the office ( kerry)was disbanned and no follow ups were called in or out...

i know this as i worked on the data bases for 1 1/2 months and i made many of the calls to voters for setting up the pick up lists for the canvassers.

so the kerry folks and dems had a huge push on for dems to vote absentee...and we had an unpresedented number of absentee balloting this time, like never before!!..and the replys on the phone were almost all the same..the dems i spoke to by phone said they did not trust the machines..specifically the african americans i spoke to!!fly

[tinfoil_beret]

51. I agree that something is fishy with the absentee ballots.

I'm wondering more about the Federal Absentee Ballots. In all previous elections on the official Florida election web site, they list the F.A.B.s separately at the bottom of the tallies. In 2004, they don't.

Could this be the answer? Federal law requires them to count the Federal Absentee Ballots in the official tally. Did Florida count them yet? Would this explain the minute swings in Democratic support for these counties, as shown in the original post and more clearly reflected in the revision (in post #31)?

[tinfoil_beret]

52. From Florida's 2000 official election results...

Federal Absentee Ballots: Bush,1575; Gore, 836.

I assume that we would have many times that amount in 2004 due to the increase in oversea deployments after 9/11. Am I incorrect in assuming this?

If applied to the counties, would these FABs be enough for a 3800 Republican vote swing in Sarasota? An 18000 Republican vote swing in Pinellas? A 2000 Democratic votes swing in Duval? Etc?

Of course, the FABs could have nothing at all to do with this number jitter...

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Suposedly Bush got more votes than registered REPs in the whole state?

2004 General Election

Registered Republicans = 3,892,492
Registered Democrats = 4,261,249

2004 General Election Official Results

Bush/Cheney = 3,964,522
Kerry/Edwards = 3,583,544


That means the Bush got 72,030 more votes than there are Registered REP in the whole state.

Does this mean that every registered REP voted? Or that most of the IND'S voted for Bush rather than Kerry?

This is in a state where Bush had a hard time getting crowds to come out to his rallies? Where the DEM'S were more motivated then they ever been in the history of the party?

Even in my own county Bush got many more votes than registered REP'S.

Alachua Co Registered REP = 39,647
Alachua Co Bush votes = 47,762

There is no way in the world that every REP voted in this county and then another 8,115 voted for Bush on top of that. No way.

The REP party here was in shambles, especially after the Swift Boat Vet Rally fiasco. The REP party never in bothered to send paid staff here. If they had a big GOTV effort here, it must have been a secret.

On Oct. 4 Michael Moore came to Gainesville for the last push for the DEM GOTV effort. The O'Dome where he appeared was packed with DEM'S (the arena easily holds over 12,000). About 100 REP'S, at most, showed up to protest. Of the over 12,000 people who showed up, at least 90% were registered to vote and were voting for Kerry.

At the Swift Boat Rally the Bush supporters were outnumbered by the Kerry supporters by at least 3 to 1.

Same thing happened when Cheney came to Gainesville the day after VP debate. He met with 11 local business owners and outside the protesters outnumbered the supporters by at least 3 to 1.

Funny when Edwards came a few weeks later, there were 5000 to 10,000 supporters who showed up and a handful of Bush supporters came to protest.

In addition, many of the REPs that I know in this area were very unhappy with Bush and were either going to hold their nose and vote for Kerry or not vote at all.

There is just no way that Bush got plus 100% of the REP vote. No way.

[tinfoil_beret]

7. I agree completely.

Something stinks in Florida.

I also analyzed the official Miami-Dade canvass ad nauseum. Based on the precinct data I calculated that the third-party registered voters broke for Kerry at 58.52%.

By the way, other than the red gains shown above, I'd look in the counties that don't fit the above pattern, including the remaining five of the twelve most populated counties. (Of course, cutting down Kerry gains in the above seven counties probably helped the reds a whole lot!) Even several of the smaller counties fit the above pattern where the percentage of Kerry voters matches Gore's county percentages within plus or minus one percent. Many others match Gore's percentages within plus or minus two percent, but these counties are less questionable due to the magnitude of the change. Only Gadsden trended toward blue over 1.94%, with a 3.61% swing. Based on my analysis of Florida's voting history since 1988 this is highly (infinitesimally) improbable, and other indicators such as the high increases in turnout make the chances of all of these variables converging by natural market forces for a Bush victory approach nil.

No, I haven't done the math. I honestly wouldn't know where to begin. But I do understand mathematical probability enough to know that this is nearly impossible in any legitimate election, considering all of the factors I have considered.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. I've also looked at the Castor vs Kerry numbers

In almost every county Castor outpolled Kerry. There is no way that this could have happened. Even a the local head of the DEM party told me he thought Castor ran a terrible campaign. I asked him to try to explain to me how she got more votes then Kerry? Of course, he had no answer.

Kerry received a total of 3,583,544 votes

Castor received a total of 3,590,201 votes

Castor received 6,657 more votes than Kerry.


In the race for President - 61,774 votes went to other candidates

In the Senate race - 166,829 votes went to other candidates, with the majority going to Dennis Bradley.

So in the Senate race 105,055 more votes went to other candidates than in the race for President.


Also, the total votes cast for President = 7,609,810

The total votes cast for Senate = 7,429,894

That means there were 179,916 more under votes in the Senate race than the Presidential race.


So Castor lost 105,055 votes to other candidates over Kerry. Plus 179,916 more people didn't pick anyone for Senate but did pick someone for President. Yet Castor still beat Kerry by 6,657 votes? No way Jose.

[americanwhothinks]

9. tinfoil beret, i'm a big fan!! thank you and keep it comin n/t

[tinfoil_beret]

17. Thanks, americanwhothinks.

I'll keep plugging away.

[enough]

10. I believe this is very similar to the pattern found in Ohio.

Posted by berniew1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x111561

Huge Bush margin increases in 3 S.W. Ohio counties questionable

ELECTION RESULTS IN SOUTHWESTERN OHIO

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. www.flcv.com/swohio.html

Three contiguous counties in southwestern Ohio, all traditionally Republican counties, gave unexpectedly large margins to George W. Bush over John F. Kerry on election night. All three counties experienced a huge increase in voter turnout. In all three counties, Bush received a higher percentage of the vote than he did in the 2000 election, and Kerry received a lower percentage of the vote than Al Gore did in 2000. This study analyzes how it happened.

In Warren County, the administrative building was locked down on election night, all in the name of "homeland security." No independent persons were allowed to observe the vote count. Compared to 2000, the population increased by 14.75%, the number of registered voters increased by 29.66%, voter turnout increased by 33.55%, Bush’s point spread increased from 42.24% to 44.58%, and Bush’s victory margin increased from 29,176 votes to 41,124 votes.

In Clermont County, compared to 2000, the population increased by 4.39%, the number of registered voters increased by 10.20%, voter turnout increased by 24.86%, Bush's point spread increased from 37.50% to 41.69%, and Bush's victory margin increased from 26,202 votes to 36,376 votes.

In Butler County, compared to 2000, the population increased by 3.12%, the number of registered voters increased by 10.06%, voter turnout increased by 18.18%, Bush's point spread increased from 29.40% to 32.52%, and Bush's victory margin increased from 40,197 votes to 52,550 votes.

These three counties provided to George W. Bush a victory margin of 130,050 votes, more than his statewide margin of 119,000 votes. All the above data other than the statewide margin are figures provided on election night.

After close examination of the underlying data by precinct, I do not believe these numbers. They call into question both the voter registration data and the turnout data, and the validity of the vote count itself.

These three counties between them, Butler, Warren, and Clermont, provided all of George W. Bush’s lead on election night. They also provided, by far, his three largest majorities, and the three largest increases in Bush’s margin of victory among any of the 72 counties that he won. The election results in Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties should be challenged, for they call into question the results for the entire State of Ohio.

much more at link>

[tinfoil_beret]

16. Aha!

I had read about these unexplained margins. Does Ohio show any significant patterns of Kerry percentages within plus or minus one percent or minus third-party losses within plus or minus one percent?

If this is the modus operandi for Florida, it might very well be the m.o. for Ohio and possibly other states.

[tinfoil_beret]

11. Oops!

:wow:

I didn't reconcile the last percentage with (?). I'm working on it.

[bemis12]

12. Pardon me for saying so...

.... but aren't we now pointing to the following:

1. Unexplained changes- indicative of vote fraud.

2. Minor/No changes- indicative of vote fraud.

I do believe we've reached the point where the only counties that aren't suspicious are the ones that Kerry INCREASED his margins over Gore.

Works for me, but it's probably not accurate.

[tinfoil_beret]

13. I knew you'd show up to pick on something I said.

1. I believe that Kerry won Florida, for several reasons. Numerous other posts here and elsewhere explain those reasons, so I won't bother.

2. I didn't identify a minor problem. I identified a statistically significant pattern.

3. My analysis doesn't conclusively prove anything. It merely adds to the mountain of well-documented irregularities and anomalies, and I've put it out there for others to debate, expand or dismiss.

Got it? :P

[bemis12]

15. You bet

If we use the equation of "Anomaly= No significant change", then that's odd.

I don't really pick on you. I just pick on the nuttiest theories, as I see them. :-)

[tinfoil_beret]

19. Is it time to feed the troll?

Bemis12, you are quite the entertainer.

An identifiable pattern of infinitesimal odds IS an anomaly, whether it shows a pattern of no change or a pattern of large change without correlating, causal components. Show me a methodology whereby you might show the mathematical probability that subsequent elections result in multiple counties showing the same percentages given so many variables, including the following:

record voter turnout;
immigration and emigration;;
different registration rates for the opposing parties;
changes in voter sentiment and support for the incumbent, as revealed by falling approval ratings;
likely voter resentment;
dishonest administration policy;
lack of a similar historical pattern;
etc, ad infinitum.

For that to happen, it would require that either everyone voted the same as in the prior election and new voters registered in precisely the same ratios or new registration would offset almost exactly the voters who changed their votes, died, moved, abstained, etc., in more than seven counties. The odds of it happening in just one trend toward very slim. The odds of it happening simultaneously in three in this particular election approach infinitesimal. And the odds of it happening in more than seven counties in the state of Florida in this election approach zero, unless someone manipulated the count.

Can you honestly tell me that you see such a pattern as no significance? Show me the math! Or give me some of whatever you're smoking, 'cause it must be super sh*t!

[3smos]

18. speaking of florida...

anyone else find it totally bizarre that the worthless DNC chose Orlando FL as the place for it's big hoopla? the place that twice screwed us?????

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. BRAVO TIN FOIL. They had to have a fraud benchmark...

And what better benchmark than giving Kerry what Gore had. They couldn't give him what he really deserved, in truth, so why not pick something that could be used as and explanation - "Kerry got what Gore got-so shut up with the fraud,already". And they had to have a bench mark plan since the election returns were a floating unknown. So giving him what Gore got plus 5% would work in any scenario. OOps - how do ab's fit in?

I think if this diabolical plan could be exposed if it could be shown to apply in as many places as possible.

You are a genius!

[tinfoil_beret]

21. Genius?

Hmmm... I like the sound of that. Thanks.

As far as the absentees, I tried to find a reasonable explanation for the jittering of numbers, and the historical quantities of federal absentee ballots might fit such a mold. If we forget about the possible impact of federal absentee ballots, if indeed they included them in the official numbers, all sorts of variables could come into play to explain these minute, seemingly chaotic shifts from zero, including intentional pseudo-random manipulation or bags of ballots someone found in the bathroom or someone's desk drawer. They could even be simple rounding errors. I don't know, but the pattern is blatant enough that it doesn't matter a whole lot the exact cause of these minor peturburations, because of so many possible explanations.

I agree that we should look in other states, especially Ohio, for the same m.o. I wouldn't say I found the smoking gun, but I'd like to think I found some bullet holes. It sure looks like evidence of a crime.

Thanks again for the strokes. :)

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. The absentee ballot totals are available

on some of the FL SOE websites.

I collected the numbers about a week ago. I can post them later when I get home.

The interesting thing that I noticed is that Bush won the absentee ballots but it was offset by Kerry winning in the Early Voting.

Why is Early Voting the only place that Kerry consistently wins, even in counties that went to Bush otherwise?

[tinfoil_beret]

24. I assume they included them in the certified results.

Yes?

Specifically I was thinking more about the "federal absentee ballots" listed at the bottoms of prior general elections on Florida's web site. I believe there's a differene between the "federal absentee ballots" and the "regular" absentee ballots for registered voters. Do you know otherwise?

It would be interesting to look at the absentee results to see if they do correlate with the minor perturbations I noted. I'm running out of steam, but I will examine them later. I thank you in advance for links or numbers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. Here's how it's suppose to work in FL

The Friday before the election, the canvasing board certifies the ballots. This is usually approved based on staff recommendations, that they checked all the ballots and that they are valid.

Then the staff starts feeding them into the scanners in OS counties. (I don't know about touch screen counties.} This batch of absentee ballots is read first, prior to election day. On election day the totals that are posted include the certified absentee ballots that had been received up to that point.

MY SOE said that most of the overseas ballots came in time this year. Two changes helped that situation, the military folks could snail mail, email or fax in their ballots. This also made it much more difficult to ever know how the military vote went. Their ballots would have been counted in with all of the other absentee ballots.

The place to look for fraud would be in the people who are on staff. I bet it would be easy to infiltrate this area with GOP operatives.

PS: I'll post those numbers later this afternoon.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. In regards to federal vs regular ballots

I would assume federal indicates 'overseas' ballots.

I'm still working on the numbers. I'll post what I have next.

[berniew1]

25. I'm interested in getting the absentee vote breakout by county for Fla.

I'm interested in getting the absentee vote breakout by county for Fla. Could you post or send to me.

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. No problem

I'll be home later this afternoon.

Over 1/2 the counties posted figures for ABS and EV. The contrast is striking.

[FloridaCrat]

33. Did you ever post the EV and Absentee numbers?

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. Here you go

I posted this last night in it's own thread, but I forgot to come back to this one to post the data. Sorry about that.


These are the 25 counties that I have found that posted data for EV and ABS. So far, Bush won the ABS by 56,607 votes. On the other hand, Kerry won the Early Votes by 47,891 votes.


Bush / Cheney Kerry / Edwards

County (REP) (DEM)| ABS (REP) ABS (DEM) | EV (REP) EV (DEM)
Baker 7,738 - 2,180 | 979 - 301 | 2,287 - 528
Bradfrd 7,553 - 3,244 | 1,117 - 480 | 1,658 - 751
Brevard 152,838 - 110,153| 31,000 - 18,329 | 15,257 - 15,101
Calhoun 3,780 - 2,116 | 517 - 307 | 939 - 488
Colmbia 16,753 - 8,029 | 2,121 - 1,082 | 4,916 - 2,399
Gilchrt 4,934 - 2,016 | 610 - 291 | 1,123 - 473
Hardee 5,047 - 2,148 | 2,786 - 1,052 | 2,261 - 1,095
Hendry 5,756 - 3,960 | 960 - 539 | 1,530 - 925
Hernndo 41,847 - 36,521 | 8,873 - 6,796 | 6,366 - 7,459
Highlnd 25,874 - 15,346 | 4,976 - 2,050 | 6,497 - 4,749
Hillsbr 245,150 - 213,804| 36,881 - 26,292 | 41,430 - 44,418
Jeffern 3,298 - 4,134 | 515 - 513 | 1,192 - 1,269
Lake 74,382 - 48,216 | 15,064 - 8,594 | 18,350 - 13,559
Leon 51,594 - 83,830 | 10,927 - 11,721 | 4,429 - 13,445
Levy 10,408 - 6,073 | 1,921 - 955 | 1,233 - 816
Liberty 1,927 - 1,070 | 230 - 126 | 538 - 304
Madison 4,196 - 4,048 | 507 - 472 | 1,403 - 1,021
Okeecho 6,987 - 5,151 | 1,332 - 815 | 1,855 - 1,621
Orange 192,390 - 193,217| 37,099 - 29,091 | 31,921 - 46,671
Palm Bc 211,894 - 327,698| 37,800 - 52,792 | 13,904 - 35,551
Pinells 225,627 - 225,367| 45,934 - 40,977 | 30,648 - 38,546
Putnam 18,305 - 12,409 | 2,915 - 1,526 | 2,230 - 1,521
Seminol 108,126 - 76,938 | 20,312 - 9,801 | 10,477 - 10,128
Taylor 5,466 - 3,049 | 762 - 737 | 1,572 - 824
Volusia 111,552 - 115,335| 24,780 - 18,672 |15,819 - 24,064

Total 1543422 -1506052 | 290918 - 234311 |219835 - 267726

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=116260

[tinfoil_beret]

39. Excellent

This rules out absentees, since the numbers don't fit in the offsets.

Thanks for the data.

[FloridaCrat]

40. Thanks!

I guess Broward hasn't published theirs yet. I've got the Broward individual precincts, but don't have it correlated to EV and Abs. yet.

[flyarm]

46. i would very much like to see absentee ballot info for pinellas

i would also love to see the military votes, has anyone seen this info??
thank you for all the digging you are doing..i am not a math wiz..so the numbers all bog my mind ..but when i see it done none of these numbers are making sense to me..i would also love to see the early vote data, as i was a poll watcher down here and i know what i saw with my own eyes and the numbers don't match what i saw for early vote..no way no how!!

thanks again!!!..fly

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. Here's the numbers for just Pinellas

Early Voting -
Bush/30648
Kerry/38546

Absentee -
Bush/45934
Kerry/40977


So the pattern appears again. Bush wins the ABS and Kerry wins the EV.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. Well isn't it because the "fix" wasn't on during that period - the

early voting is what is REAL???? I don't remember seeing the results of early voting. They probably would be what the real election results should have. I know TX had ev - I'm going to go look and see.

[skids]

29. That's because...

Older folks vote by absentee. One of the tracking polls found
that among early voters, 25% were 65+, 80% were 45+, nationally.
That's both absentee and early voting rolled together, so you can
imagine the spread for absentee/mail-in only.

[BushSpeak]

30. 2 Excel spreadsheets FL 2000-2004 & FL 1996-2004 by vendor

I've done 2 Excel spreadsheets for those that want to crunch numbers.

They are sorted by county and color coded by vendor of voting machine. I've done the basic analysis of increase in actual votes and %.

http://bushspeak.free.fr/Downloads/Florida_2000-2004_by_county_&_vendor.zip
http://bushspeak.free.fr/Downloads/Florida_1996-2004_by_vendor.zip

(note: the 2004 results are the unofficial ones just after election day)

One interesting obsevation is the steady Bush advance in the the North Florida Dixiecrat counties 25% to 32%, with one county at 39% (count the Perrot votes 7-10% in the Bush column). The increase seems rather superficial +12 to 15% for each election.

As pointed out the the original message, this all seems to perfect to be credible.

[tinfoil_beret]

38. Thanks for the data.

How convenient is it that 5 of the 7 counties in question uses E-touch machines?

[tinfoil_beret]

31. Revisions

Addendum: With the first draft of this report, I introduced you to a significant pattern in the Florida election results. The theory still stands, but I made some changes. Notably, in the first draft I tried to solve for an variable which was essentially just a ratio between values. I also tried to fit values where I shouldn't have tried to force them.

I found that the adjustments from the percentages were easier to read if I transposed them. I also decided not to try to fit the third-party losses anywhere. Though you can see that they will fit in the margin between the Republican allocated percentage and the Republican 2004 total, I have no good reason for guessing that the numbers didn't reflect the absentee ballots.

If anyone has an explanation for this one-percent pattern speak up. Otherwise we must conclude that someone rigged this one big time. ;)


Miami-Dade
2000 2004 Difference
Republican 289533 361095 71562
Democrat 328808 409732 80924
3rd party 7108 3899 -3209
Total 625449 774726 149277

% Rep 46.29% 46.61% 0.32%
% Dem 52.57% 52.89% 0.32%
% 3rd party 1.14% 0.50% -0.63%

New ballots 149277
Increase in ballots 123.87%

R 2000 share D 2000 share
2000 votes 289533 328808
New votes 69103 78477
Subtotal 358636 407285
? 2459 2447
2004 361095 409732

Hillsborough
2000 2004 Difference
Republican 180760 245576 64816
Democrat 169557 214132 44575
3rd party 9978 3514 -6464
Total 360295 463222 102927

% Rep 50.17% 53.01% 2.84%
% Dem 47.06% 46.23% -0.83%
% 3rd party 2.77% 0.76% -2.01%

New ballots 102927
Increase in ballots 128.57%

R 2000 share D 2000 share
2000 votes 180760 169557
New votes 51638 48438
Subtotal 232398 217995
? 13178 -3863
2004 245576 214132


Pinellas
2000 2004 Difference
Republican 184825 225686 40861
Democrat 200630 225460 24830
3rd party 13017 4211 -8806
Total 398472 455357 56885

% Rep 46.38% 49.56% 3.18%
% Dem 50.35% 49.51% -0.84%
% 3rd party 3.27% 0.92% -2.34%

New ballots 56885
Increase in ballots 114.28%

R 2000 share D 2000 share
2000 votes 184825 200630
New votes 26385 28642
Subtotal 211210 229272
? 14476 -3812
2004 225686 225460


Orange
2000 2004 Difference
Republican 134517 192539 58022
Democrat 140220 193354 53134
3rd party 5388 2151 -3237
Total 280125 388044 107919

% Rep 48.02% 49.62% 1.60%
% Dem 50.06% 49.83% -0.23%
% 3rd party 1.92% 0.55% -1.37%

New ballots 107919
Increase in ballots 138.53%

R 2000 share D 2000 share
2000 votes 134517 140220
New votes 51823 54020
Subtotal 186340 194240
? 6199 -886
2004 192539 193354

Duval
2000 2004 Difference
Republican 152098 220190 68092
Democrat 107864 158610 50746
3rd party 4674 2261 -2413
Total 264636 381061 116425

% Rep 57.47% 57.78% 0.31%
% Dem 40.76% 41.62% 0.86%
% 3rd party 1.77% 0.59% -1.17%

New ballots 116425
Increase in ballots 143.99%

R 2000 share D 2000 share
2000 votes 180760 169557
New votes 51638 48438
Subtotal 232398 217995
? 13178 -3863
2004 245576 214132

Lee
2000 2004 Difference
Republican 106141 144176 38035
Democrat 73560 93860 20300
3rd party 4676 2631 -2045
Total 184377 240667 56290

% Rep 57.57% 59.91% 2.34%
% Dem 39.90% 39.00% -0.90%
% 3rd party 2.54% 1.09% -1.44%

New ballots 56290
Increase in ballots 130.53%

R 2000 share D 2000 share
2000 votes 106141 73560
New votes 32405 22458
Subtotal 138546 96018
? 5630 -2158
2004 144176 93860



Sarasota
2000 2004 Difference
Republican 83100 104692 21592
Democrat 72853 88442 15589
3rd party 4989 2518 -2471
Total 160942 195652 34710

% Rep 51.63% 53.51% 1.88%
% Dem 45.27% 45.20% -0.06%
% 3rd party 3.10% 1.29% -1.81%

New ballots 34710
Increase in ballots 121.57%

R 2000 share D 2000 share
2000 votes 83100 72853
New votes 17922 15712
Subtotal 101022 88565
? 3670 -123
2004 104692 88442

All vote counts came from the Florida election site at
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/

[FogerRox]

34. I worked in South Broward County for K/E

LAst 3 weeks of the campaign. I delivered absentees 3 times during early voting. The Bush presence at polling places "early" or Nov. 2nd--was next to nothing. We had a presence at all Broward EArly vote locations (14 locales) nearly every day. I am aware of one location that had spotty coverage only during the 1st week of early voting.

If what I saw has any weight--Kerry should have taken Broward by 75% to 80%. We had peeps in the streets with signs on saturdays, 10 to 15 peeps @ one intersection, 10 intersections in Plantation, 3 saturdays before 11-2. I had HOnk and wave teams out all over southern Broward--my peeps got on chan. 10 like 3 times.

Roj

[tinfoil_beret]

35. The Odds: 1 in 110,000

I made some quick calculations based on a small sample of previous elections. As my sample, I chose the Florida presidential elections of 1984, 1988 and 1992. I chose these elections because in all of these a Republican had won the previous election.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan ran for his second term. As I recall, Reagan had strong approval ratings and won the Florida contest against Democratic candidate Walter Mondale easily.

In 1988, Ronald Reagan's V.P., George H.W. Bush ran for his first term. George Bush won in Florida against Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush ran for his second term. Bush's approval ratings had fallen sharply due to the poor economy. Bush won Florida but lost his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton.

I excluded the 2004 Florida presidential election from my calculations because I believe the data is tainted.

First, I checked the sample of Florida counties with over 200,000 registered voters.

All Dem. Shift
-1% to 1% Ratio 1 in
Voters > 200K 42 8 19.05% 5.25
Voters > 500K 21 4 19.05% 5.25
Voters 200K to 500K 21 4 19.05% 5.25

You can see that the ratio is consistent among all ranges, at 19.05%.

Next, I calculated the probability that different numbers of counties would have Democratic support within plus or minus 1% of the Democratic support in the previous election.

Number
of
Counties Ratio 1 in
-------- ----- ----
1 0.19 5.25
2 0.04 27.56
3 0.0069107 144.70
4 0.0013163 759.69
5 0.0002507 3988.38
6 0.0000478 20938.99
7 0.0000091 109929.72

In 2004, as shown in the original post of this thread, Florida had 7 out of 14 counties with more than 200K registered voters and Democratic support within plus or minus one percent.

This puts the odds that Florida had a legitimate election at 1 in ~110,000.

Of course, when you consider all of the factors involved in this election, the odds are probably much slimmer.

[tinfoil_beret]

36. Actually, I need to rethink this line of thinking.

The odds seem to be 1 to 1 that in a Florida election with a Republican incumbent Florida would have three counties with the same Democratic support (within 1%). Of course, one of the two from the sample elections had a Bush in office. :crazy:

[tinfoil_beret]

42. I take it back. See post #41. n/t

[tinfoil_beret]

41. HOLY TOLEDO!

I just changed my spreadsheet to correlate the one-percent-blue-shift phenomenon with how the counties voted in the previous elections, and it revealed a STUNNING fact.

From 1984 to 1996, ie. prior to 2000, this phenomon NEVER happened in counties in which the majority voted for the Democratic candidate in the previous election. From 1984 to 1996 it ONLY happened in counties in which the majority voted for the Republican candidate in the previous election.

In 2000, the following counties in which the majority voted for the Democratic candidate in the previous election exhibited the one-percent-blue-shift phenomenon:

Hillsborough, Polk, Hernando, Citrus, Gadsden, Jefferson.

In 2004, the following counties in which the majority voted for the Democratic candidate in the previous election exhibited the one-percent-blue-shift phenomenon:

Miami-Dade, Pinellas, Orange, Alachua.

I REPEAT! This NEVER happened from 1984 to 1996. Amazingly this phenomenon started in 2000. Imagine that!

[tinfoil_beret]

49. IT ONLY HAPPENS TO BUSHES

Take a look at the number of Florida counties with less than
one-percent shifts in Democratic support.

1% Shifters						
						
                   '84     '88     '92     '96     '00     '04
Majority voted R    3       8       21      0       6       7
Majority voted D    0       0        0      0       6       4
                    3       8       21      0      12      11

In '84 it happened in Miami-Dade, Pasco and Sarasota, all
counties with large numbers of registered voters.

In '88 it happened in Duval, and the rest of the counties had
relatively smaller numbers of registered voters.

In '92, George H.W. Bush's bid for re-election, it happened in
three large counties (Duval, Volusia and Lee) and five smaller
counties.

In '96 it didn't happen at all. This was Clinton's bid for a
second term. Democratic support fell sharply in all counties,
but Clinton still won Florida, due largely to the Perot
effect. (The Republican support fell across the board in '92,
and they only made partial rebounds in '96.)

As I mentioned previously, until 2000 this phenomenon only
happened in red counties.

The odds of Democratic support staying the same (within 1%)
aren't so slim with Bushes involved, after all.

Unfortunately I don't have enough data to check pre-1980
(pre-Bush) elections for the same pattern.

[RaulVB]

43. Great findings!

Have you send this information to the people involved in the fraud investigation?

Regards.

[tinfoil_beret]

50. No. I haven't sent this to anyone.

I expected some sort of peer review, but nobody has either proved or disproved that this should or shouldn't happen. Though many have come forward with anecdotes to suggest that the Democratic support should have swung by more than 1% in these counties with large populations, I just don't know how significant this pattern is.

[Emillereid]

44. Stay with it -- you're definitely on to something!