Spot the trend: Clermont Precinct Turnout vs. Vote

[TruthIsAll]

As precinct turnout increases, so does the Schmidt vote

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/ClermontTurnoutVsVote

[TruthIsAll]

1. THE NUMBERS

Precinct		Turnout	Hackett	Schmidt
UNION TOWNSHIP H		8.2%	46.7%	53.3%
MONROE TOWNSHIP I		8.4%	56.4%	43.6%
MONROE TOWNSHIP A		8.6%	45.9%	51.4%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP 1		9.9%	54.3%	45.7%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP M		10.2%	51.7%	46.7%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP G		10.3%	40.5%	59.5%
UNION TOWNSHIP L		11.2%	53.4%	45.1%
UNION TOWNSHIP K		11.7%	51.4%	47.9%
UNION TOWNSHIP F		12.3%	48.9%	46.8%
AMELIA VILLAGE B		12.9%	48.5%	51.5%
FELICITY VILLAGE		13.4%	75.4%	24.6%
BETHEL VILLAGE C		13.4%	48.6%	51.4%
UNION TOWNSHIP M1M		13.4%	47.9%	50.7%
AMELIA VILLAGE A		13.8%	41.9%	57.1%
MONROE TOWNSHIP J		14.0%	36.5%	63.5%
UNION TOWNSHIP P		14.3%	44.4%	55.6%
UNION TOWNSHIP Y		14.6%	37.2%	62.8%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP H		14.7%	39.0%	61.0%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP K		15.1%	33.3%	66.7%
MILFORD CITY F		15.3%	47.3%	51.8%
W1LL1AMSBURG VLG A		15.7%	50.0%	50.0%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP B		15.7%	48.5%	51.5%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP E		15.8%	47.1%	52.3%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP E1E		15.8%	49.5%	50.5%
WAYNE TOWNSHIP D		15.8%	58.8%	40.0%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP T		16.0%	41.8%	58.2%
TATE TOWNSHIP B		16.3%	53.6%	44.9%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP H		16.4%	44.1%	55.9%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP D		16.5%	47.6%	51.5%
BETHEL VILLAGE B		16.6%	63.2%	36.8%
UNION TOWNSHIP D1D		16.7%	37.1%	62.9%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP E		16.8%	35.6%	63.8%
MONROE TOWNSHIP G		16.9%	57.0%	43.0%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP L		16.9%	60.2%	39.8%
UNION TOWNSHIP G1G		17.0%	45.1%	54.9%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP V		17.0%	44.8%	55.2%
TATE TOWNSHIP I		17.1%	49.3%	49.3%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP F		17.2%	43.9%	56.1%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP D		17.6%	40.8%	58.1%
NEW RICHMOND VLG A		17.6%	51.0%	47.9%
UNION TOWNSHIP 1		17.7%	47.5%	52.5%
BETHEL VILLAGE A		17.9%	40.0%	59.1%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP C		17.9%	50.8%	48.6%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP D		18.0%	28.4%	70.5%
NEW RICHMOND VLG B		18.2%	60.0%	38.6%
UNION TOWNSHIP 111		18.2%	26.0%	74.0%
UNION TOWNSHIP J		18.3%	46.8%	52.5%
MONROE TOWNSHIP H		18.3%	34.2%	65.8%
UNION TOWNSHIP B		18.4%	44.5%	55.5%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP J		18.5%	37.5%	61.3%
TATE TOWNSHIP D		18.6%	46.5%	53.5%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP B		18.6%	38.7%	60.2%
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP D		18.8%	48.3%	51.0%
UNION TOWNSHIP O		18.9%	42.6%	55.8%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP B		18.9%	43.9%	56.1%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP F		19.0%	51.0%	49.0%
LOVELANDCITYA		19.0%	50.6%	49.4%
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP A		19.1%	56.6%	43.4%
MONROE TOWNSHIP B		19.1%	42.9%	56.1%
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP A		19.3%	52.3%	47.7%
UNION TOWNSHIP J1J		19.4%	44.0%	53.4%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP K		19.4%	34.4%	64.8%
WAYNE TOWNSHIP A		19.6%	38.1%	60.8%
UNION TOWNSHIP K1K		19.7%	45.1%	54.9%
TATE TOWNSHIP H		19.8%	46.2%	51.9%
UNION TOWNSHIP S		19.9%	47.0%	52.2%
UNION TOWNSHIP M		19.9%	40.5%	59.5%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP S		20.3%	37.5%	62.5%
UNION TOWNSHIP G		20.4%	41.9%	58.1%
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP C		20.4%	56.1%	43.9%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP A		20.6%	43.5%	56.5%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP N		20.7%	42.2%	57.8%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP 0		20.7%	58.3%	41.7%
UNION TOWNSHIP ML		20.7%	44.0%	56.0%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP H		20.8%	40.6%	59.4%
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP C		20.9%	50.9%	49.1%
UNION TOWNSHIP N		21.1%	44.6%	55.4%
UNION TOWNSHIP R1R		21.1%	41.5%	57.8%
UNION TOWNSHIP R		21.2%	43.2%	56.8%
UNION TOWNSHIP T		21.2%	46.2%	53.8%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP L		21.4%	45.4%	54.6%
UNION TOWNSHIP A1A		21.4%	49.5%	51.4%
TATE TOWNSHIP A		21.6%	40.4%	59.6%
MONROE TOWNSHIP E		21.6%	42.3%	57.7%
BATAVIA VILLAGE C		21.6%	52.8%	47.2%
UNION TOWNSHIP C		21.6%	45.8%	53.6%
TATE TOWNSHIP F		21.8%	35.4%	64.6%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP J		22.2%	41.1%	58.1%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP A		22.3%	50.0%	48.8%
UNION TOWNSHIP D		22.4%	39.2%	60.8%
WILLlAMSBuRG VLG B		22.5%	50.9%	49.1%
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP 6		22.6%	43.5%	55.1%
STONELICK TOWNSHIP D		22.9%	44.7%	54.3%
WAYNE TOWNSHIP C		22.9%	46.8%	52.3%
UNION TOWNSHIP B1B		23.0%	49.3%	50.7%
WAYNE TOWNSHIP B		23.1%	43.8%	55.6%
UNION TOWNSHIP X		23.1%	48.2%	51.1%
WILLIAMSBURG TWP C		23.3%	51.2%	48.8%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP C		23.4%	31.5%	68.5%
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP B		23.5%	55.7%	44.3%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP L		23.6%	47.1%	52.9%
OHIO TOWNSHIP C		23.9%	50.4%	48.9%
BATAVIA TOWNSH IP J		23.9%	41.4%	58.2%
MONROE TOWNSHIP D		24.2%	51.4%	48.6%
NEW RICHMOND VLG C		24.2%	61.0%	38.2%
GOSHEN TOWNSHIP D		24.2%	33.5%	66.5%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP N		24.3%	40.8%	59.2%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP K1K		24.7%	35.2%	64.3%
MONROE TOWNSHIP C		24.8%	27.7%	71.3%
OHIO TOWNSHIP A		24.9%	46.4%	53.0%
OWENSVILLE VILLAGE		25.0%	55.4%	43.8%
JACKSON TOWNSHIP C		25.0%	42.9%	56.6%
UNION TOWNSHIP A		25.4%	34.3%	65.7%
LOVELAND CITY B		25.5%	39.2%	60.4%
WILLIAMSBURG TWP D		25.5%	51.6%	48.4%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP D1D		25.6%	31.3%	68.7%
MOSCOW VILLAGE		25.6%	47.2%	52.8%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP H		25.7%	38.8%	61.2%
MIAMI TOWNSHIPS		25.7%	39.8%	59.1%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP J		25.7%	36.9%	62.8%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP G		25.8%	48.6%	51.4%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP G		25.8%	45.3%	54.7%
UNION TOWNSHIP E		25.8%	37.3%	62.7%
TATE TOWNSHIP E		25.9%	43.4%	55.4%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP I		26.0%	35.1%	64.9%
UNION TOWNSHIP C1C		26.6%	42.9%	57.1%
TATE TOWNSHIP C		26.7%	41.1%	58.9%
WILLIAMSBURG VLG C		26.7%	45.9%	54.1%
MILFORDCITYA		26.7%	38.5%	60.8%
WAYNE TOWNSHIP E		26.8%	32.9%	66.4%
MILFORD CITY B		26.8%	48.7%	49.4%
JACKSON TOWNSHIP A		27.1%	32.1%	65.8%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP Y		27.3%	35.7%	64.0%
UNION TOWNSHIP F1F		27.4%	34.5%	65.5%
MILFORD CITY D		27.5%	45.4%	52.3%
STONELICK TOWNSHIP F		27.7%	55.1%	44.1%
UNION TOWNSHIP W		27.8%	43.2%	56.3%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP X		27.8%	31.5%	68.1%
UNION TOWNSHIP P1P		27.9%	40.4%	59.6%
UNION TOWNSHIP Q		27.9%	32.2%	67.3%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP A		28.0%	39.3%	60.7%
STONELICK TOWNSHIP A		28.3%	45.0%	53.3%
NEWTONSVlLLE VILLAGE		28.3%	45.2%	54.8%
MILFORD CITY C		28.5%	53.5%	46.5%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP A		28.6%	38.3%	61.2%
UNION TOWNSHIP Z		28.7%	44.7%	55.3%
PIERCE TOWNSHIPS		28.8%	33.5%	66.5%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP dC		29.0%	38.1%	61.9%
STONELICK TOWNSHIP G		29.0%	44.2%	54.8%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP H1H		29.0%	38.1%	61.9%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP F1F		29.1%	37.8%	61.8%
MONROE TOWNSHIP F		29.2%	43.6%	55.6%
BATAVIA TOWNSHIP]		29.3%	44.7%	55.3%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP A1A		29.3%	28.9%	71.1%
UNION TOWNSHIP U		29.3%	44.7%	55.3%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP I		29.8%	35.8%	64.2%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP P		29.9%	40.4%	59.6%
TATE TOWNSHIP G		29.9%	34.3%	65.7%
MILFORD CITY G		30.0%	49.2%	50.4%
UNION TOWNSHIP E1E		30.0%	46.0%	53.2%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP K		30.1%	50.8%	48.1%
WILLIAMSBURG TWP A		30.4%	45.7%	54.3%
STONELICK TOWNSHIP E		30.4%	42.2%	56.4%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP M		30.6%	33.9%	65.0%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP F		30.7%	39.4%	60.6%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP B1B		30.8%	33.0%	66.5%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP R		30.9%	37.5%	62.5%
MILFORD CITY E		31.0%	52.8%	47.2%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP O		31.5%	40.0%	60.0%
OHIO TOWNSHIP B		32.6%	46.2%	52.3%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP G1G		32.8%	36.0%	63.3%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP Z		32.9%	25.6%	74.0%
BATAVIA VILLAGE B		33.0%	55.8%	43.0%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP L		33.0%	32.4%	66.8%
UNION TOWNSHIP V		33.5%	39.0%	61.0%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP F		33.5%	44.9%	54.4%
JACKSON TOWNSHIP B		34.1%	34.1%	65.9%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP Q		34.2%	38.5%	61.1%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP U		34.3%	43.7%	55.7%
WILLIAMSBURG TWP B		34.3%	42.5%	57.5%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP W		34.5%	38.7%	59.3%
STONELICK TOWNSHIP B		34.6%	44.1%	55.0%
BATAVIA VILLAGE A		34.9%	53.7%	46.3%
MILFORD CITY H		34.9%	43.8%	56.2%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP 111		35.4%	29.9%	70.1%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP C		35.5%	23.3%	76.1%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP K		36.2%	39.3%	60.7%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP E		36.4%	32.5%	67.5%
PIERCE TOWNSHIP B		37.2%	35.7%	63.8%
STONELICK TOWNSHIP C		38.4%	38.7%	60.5%
MIAMI TOWNSHIP J1J		38.6%	35.6%	64.4%

[eridani]

5. I put it into an Excel spreadsheet and got the following linear regression

y = -0.4356x + 0.5372
R2 = 0.1397

Some negative correlation, but R2 isn't particularly high. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Did Schmidt do a particularly good job of getting her supporters out in the high turnout precincts? If the higher turnouts are because of padding, the only way to find out would be to check the precinct sign-in data, which (if that were the case) would be low.

[TruthIsAll]

7. What is your Y and X? My regression/graph shows a 5% slope

in Schmidt voter share (y) as turnout(x) increases...

[eridani]

15. I plotted Hackett voter share instead n/t

That's why the negative correlation. If you plot Schmidt voter share vs turnout, you'd get a positive correlation.

[Pobeka]

13. I confirmed those numbers.

Looks like the slope is statistically very significant.

[eridani]

16. I agree, however--

I'm not sure what it means.

[TruthIsAll]

17. GRAPH: Hackett Share of Total Votes by Precinct

HACKETT ONLY WON IN PRECINCTS WHICH HAD FEWER THAN 200 TOTAL VOTES.

[TruthIsAll]

18. Hackett won 38 of 191 precincts; he lost ALL 54 w/over 187 total votes

In Clermont:
Hackett TVote Pct	over187
N 12439 29889 41.6% 54


1	46	61	75.4%	
2	36	57	63.2%	
3	83	136	61.0%	
4	62	103	60.2%	
5	42	70	60.0%	
6	50	85	58.8%	
7	74	127	58.3%	
8	49	86	57.0%	
9	43	76	56.6%	
10	22	39	56.4%	
11	46	82	56.1%	
12	48	86	55.8%	
13	54	97	55.7%	
14	72	130	55.4%	
15	75	136	55.1%	
16	44	81	54.3%	
17	72	134	53.7%	
18	37	69	53.6%	
19	46	86	53.5%	
20	71	133	53.4%	
21	47	89	52.8%	
22	94	178	52.8%	
23	68	130	52.3%	
24	31	60	51.7%	
25	63	122	51.6%	
26	73	142	51.4%	
27	37	72	51.4%	
28	65	127	51.2%	
29	49	96	51.0%	
30	49	96	51.0%	
31	55	108	50.9%	
32	57	112	50.9%	
33	94	185	50.8%	
34	95	187	50.8%	
35	43	85	50.6%	
36	69	137	50.4%	
37	27	54	50.0%	
38	40	80	50.0%	

39	52	105	49.5%	
40	46	93	49.5%	
41	113	229	49.3%	1
42	36	73	49.3%	
43	119	242	49.2%	1
44	23	47	48.9%	
45	75	154	48.7%	
46	89	183	48.6%	
47	34	70	48.6%	
48	81	167	48.5%	
49	48	99	48.5%	
50	71	147	48.3%	
51	68	141	48.2%	
52	35	73	47.9%	
53	49	103	47.6%	
54	76	160	47.5%	
55	52	110	47.3%	
56	25	53	47.2%	
57	73	155	47.1%	
58	40	85	47.1%	
59	54	115	47.0%	
60	74	158	46.8%	
61	51	109	46.8%	
62	42	90	46.7%	
63	46	99	46.5%	
64	77	166	46.4%	
65	54	117	46.2%	
66	60	130	46.2%	
67	72	156	46.2%	
68	115	250	46.0%	1
69	17	37	45.9%	
70	73	159	45.9%	
71	70	153	45.8%	
72	86	188	45.7%	1
73	79	174	45.4%	
74	59	130	45.4%	
75	111	245	45.3%	1
76	28	62	45.2%	
77	23	51	45.1%	
78	64	142	45.1%	
79	54	120	45.0%	
80	183	408	44.9%	1
81	56	125	44.8%	
82	38	85	44.7%	
83	42	94	44.7%	
84	63	141	44.7%	
85	84	188	44.7%	1
86	54	121	44.6%	
87	94	211	44.5%	1
88	60	135	44.4%	
89	46	104	44.2%	
90	41	93	44.1%	
91	89	202	44.1%	1
92	48	109	44.0%	
93	51	116	44.0%	
94	61	139	43.9%	
95	43	98	43.9%	
96	146	333	43.8%	1
97	78	178	43.8%	
98	69	158	43.7%	
99	58	133	43.6%	
100	117	269	43.5%	1
101	30	69	43.5%	
102	36	83	43.4%	
103	99	229	43.2%	1
104	41	95	43.2%	
105	42	98	42.9%	
106	81	189	42.9%	1
107	96	224	42.9%	1
108	55	129	42.6%	
109	65	153	42.5%	
110	82	194	42.3%	1
111	92	218	42.2%	1
112	81	192	42.2%	1
113	83	198	41.9%	1
114	36	86	41.9%	
115	28	67	41.8%	
116	114	275	41.5%	1
117	96	232	41.4%	1
118	51	124	41.1%	
119	53	129	41.1%	
120	78	191	40.8%	1
121	82	201	40.8%	1
122	41	101	40.6%	
123	30	74	40.5%	
124	49	121	40.5%	
125	59	146	40.4%	
126	99	245	40.4%	1
127	46	114	40.4%	
128	44	110	40.0%	
129	46	115	40.0%	
130	74	186	39.8%	
131	69	175	39.4%	
132	59	150	39.3%	
133	110	280	39.3%	1
134	82	209	39.2%	1
135	85	217	39.2%	1
136	16	41	39.0%	
137	32	82	39.0%	
138	59	152	38.8%	
139	79	204	38.7%	1
140	103	266	38.7%	1
141	96	248	38.7%	1
142	57	148	38.5%	
143	90	234	38.5%	1
144	157	410	38.3%	1
145	37	97	38.1%	
146	85	223	38.1%	1
147	56	147	38.1%	
148	112	296	37.8%	1
149	42	112	37.5%	
150	63	168	37.5%	
151	99	264	37.5%	1
152	146	391	37.3%	1
153	32	86	37.2%	
154	52	140	37.1%	
155	134	363	36.9%	1
156	23	63	36.5%	
157	95	264	36.0%	1
158	49	137	35.8%	
159	158	442	35.7%	1
160	112	314	35.7%	1
161	57	160	35.6%	
162	53	149	35.6%	
163	29	82	35.4%	
164	75	213	35.2%	1
165	85	242	35.1%	1
166	87	252	34.5%	1
167	86	250	34.4%	1
168	48	140	34.3%	
169	132	385	34.3%	1
170	13	38	34.2%	
171	45	132	34.1%	
172	86	254	33.9%	1
173	61	182	33.5%	
174	83	248	33.5%	1
175	30	90	33.3%	
176	69	209	33.0%	1
177	49	149	32.9%	
178	55	169	32.5%	
179	80	247	32.4%	1
180	64	199	32.2%	1
181	63	196	32.1%	1
182	23	73	31.5%	
183	140	445	31.5%	1
184	57	182	31.3%	
185	38	127	29.9%	
186	55	190	28.9%	1
187	25	88	28.4%	
188	28	101	27.7%	
189	20	77	26.0%	
190	114	446	25.6%	1
191	128	549	23.3%	1
Sum	12439	29889	41.6%	54

[eridani]

20. I see you did total votes instead of percentages

BTW, do you upload your graph to some image host somehow? Please explain how to do that.

The thing is that with smaller numbers, there is inevitably more deviation from the average than with larger numbers. It's like a hospital with 50 beds being far, far more likely to have a birth ratio of 57% boys to girls than one with 300 beds. Also, you are much more likely to get 7 out of 10 tosses to be heads than you are to get 70 out of 100.

[TruthIsAll]

22. Save the Excel graph as a web page and upload to the web site.

.

[TruthIsAll]

23. I know the Law of Large Numbers.

But nevertheless, the uniform trend in percentage deviation between voting size groups is quite interesting.

[freedomfries]

6. KICK

[TruthIsAll]

9. An explanation of the graph and a question

The graph shows the linear trend (best-fit regression line) in percentage vote share for Hackett and Schmidt as precinct voter turnout percentage increases.

The slope of the line is positive (.05) for Schmidt and negative (-0.05) for Hackett. All things being equal, one would expect a zero slope; that is, minimal difference in vote share due to increase in precinct voter turnout.

How did the pattern compare to corresponding precinct voter turnout and the Dem/Repub percentage split in prior elections?

[jojo54]

2. Is it me or do these numbers NOT add up?

Do we have another case of software glitches again?

[Botany]

3. Nothing to see ......

..... it was the humidity.

[slor]

4. Keep speaking the Truth! n/t

[wli]

8. oh no! rigged again! but they just call it all tinfoil, and ignore it

No surprises.

[Stewie]

10. Duh, it's because more people used to voting Republican are showing up.

It's a heavily Republican district where people are used to being represented by Republicans, so that's how swing voters tend to break. If only 100 people showed up, it'd be 50 Dem precinct chairs and 50 GOP precinct chairs.

When you start adding more people you eventually draw people who are just used to voting for whatever party always wins. That's why the GOP got more votes when regular voters had more sway than partisans.

[TruthIsAll]

11. Duh2...More people showing up, could be Dem voters also...

Why do you assume the ratios would change?

[KaliTracy]

19. I drive through warren county to get to my son's pre-school Hackett

signs were all over the place. Not hundreds. But more than 20.

only saw one Schmidt sign, though it was much bigger.

TRUE -- it is a very Republican county -- District 2 heavily leans that way -- but in the areas I drive through (I'm in District 8) I saw more Hackett signs than Schmidt. (Hamilton and Warren mainly driven through).

[roseBudd]

12. TIA I added your turnout chart to a packet of info I dropped off today at

Hackett's law office. His receptionist said he is doing his marine thing in another state so I cannot say when he will see it, but whatever you come up with I will keep dropping off printouts of the info.

[Carolab]

14. That is so obvious.

What does it mean? Reluctant Republican voters? They were late to the polls? Their votes got counted later?

BAH. Stolen election...again.

[eridani]

21. Without access to the ballots and the counting process--

-we just plain don't know one way or another, period.

[bleever]

24. Kick. Still trying to think of other ways to disprove the benign

explanations.

The data must be there to show that increased turnout doesn't historically skew in one direction.

[Melissa G]

25. kick

[Land Shark]

26. This is not "turnout" per se from a poli sci perspective as I

understand it, but simply as the absolute numbers of voters in a precent increases, Schmidt % increases.

While I haven't independently examined this data, one reason for Schmidt percentage increasing in larger precincts only (which may ultimately have a LOWER percent of voters participating than a tiny precinct) is that a method of cheating was used that only added or changed votes in the larger precincts.

One would only mess with larger precincts for one good reason: in rural small precinct areas people know who voted and can figger what's up and what's down by a process of elimination. In larger precincts and urban areas it is much easier to mess with numbers without anybody being able to perform their own independent testing, as it were. Therefore, if the alleged fundamental rule of texas politics applies and one saves one's "best" precincts for last so one knows what margin needs to be beat, then the final Clermont 91 would have schmidt votes sprinkled among the larger precincts to provide the needed margin.

Of course, as I've often said, who knows what happens behind closed doors of our secret elections, perhaps nothing. But secrecy, even marital privacy, is virtually always for the protection of some unseemly or embarrassing behavior that society neverthleless wishes to foster. I'm still wondering though why elections have secrecy.

[Melissa G]

27. elections have secrecy becuz of retribution..

My father worked for an elected official while i was growing up. I expect he did not like him much. There was a big 4 by 8 sign in our yard for his boss come election time. His vote was still secret and i suspect even though he donated money for the campaign..his vote went the other direction. He did want to keep his job though... if his vote were not secret he might not have had a way to feed his family...

[Land Shark]

30. that's not the kind of secrecy i'm talking about

secrecy of how a particular voter voted (i.e. connecting a ballot to a voter) is the only legitimate type of secrecy. I am talking about secrecy in how otherwise anonymous ballots are counted

[Melissa G]

31. Okay LS, tracking with you now. it was the marital reference

that led me astray..;) agreed that what we need is the most transparency possible in the counting process. And after it is transparent, make it Verifiable..oh yeah, we are getting to my sig line now...

[bleever]

28. Agreeing with your point about messing with larger precincts, but

I think the turnout number TIA is citing above in the numerical table relects what percent of registered voters actually turned out. Right?


ed: clarity

[kster]

29. kick.nt

[tommcintyre]

32. kick - In tribute to his tremendous contributions - WHY??? :( n/t

[bleever]

33. Kicking for truth, justice, and TIA's invaluable work.