BradBlog: Lieberman Senate Opponents Receive Exact Same Number of Votes in 2006 as in 2000 - 448,077

[Wilms]

Lieberman Senate Opponents Receive Exact Same Number of Votes in 2006 as in 2000

By Brad

11/11/2006

snip





snip

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3778

[aquart]

1. What a coincidence.

Ain't it?

[bloom]

2. What are the chances of THAT happening? nt

[mom cat]

11. Ask TIA!

[Febble]

28. Well, if you really want to know....

the probability of any combination of random numbers turning up is the same as the chance of any other combination of random numbers turning up, although of course this isn't a random number. To compute the probability of Lamont getting exactly 448,077 votes , you'd have to know how many other numbers it could, reasonably, have been, and we don't know that. What you'd have to do is ballpark Lamont's expected vote, then compute the probability of any given number turning up. Regardless of this, however, the probability of any one number turning up will be low, therefore the probability of Lamont's number matching Giordano's will be low. However, it will be no lower than any other number in the near vicinity.

Dealing 7 cards that happen to correspond to your phone number is no less likely than dealing any other combination. It just looks spooky post hoc. However, if you bet in advance that the cards would correspond to your phone number, the probability of a win would be much lower than the probability of a loss. It all depends on whether you specify something in advance. And this wasn't specified in advance, so there is no way of knowing whether it is spooky or not. This is why probability depends on a priori hypotheses. If someone had said, in advance of the election, "I know how they rig it, and the tell-tale sign will be if the loser's vote exactly equals the loser's vote in 2004" - then the probability of that occurring, in the absence of fraud, would be tiny. But AFAIK, no-one did.

Actually, as far as fraud is concerned, I'd say it argues against it. If I was clever enough to rig the number I'd rig a different one.

[philb]

33. Less than 1 in 10,000

take the reasonable range of possible votes for the opponent and divide that into 1 for the answer
thats assuming that any number in the reasonable range is equally likely.

[Febble]

38. Well, I assume you agree

that the the other neighbouring numbers are equally unlikely, yes? In other words that there is nothing (in the absence of an a priori prediction) to make the number of votes actually recorded any less likely than any other number in the same ball park?

[nicknameless]

3. Didn't they use lever machines?

Wonder what are the odds of this happening.

[Autumn Colors]

16. Nope - in my town it was optical scan (n/t)

[nicknameless]

19. Hmmm ... more vulnerable to rigging then.

What did you vote on in the primary?

[philb]

34. Any kind of compiler can be hacked/manipulated if someone who wants to has access

[nicknameless]

36. I was under the impression that lever machines were more difficult

to use for rigging.

[Autumn Colors]

41. We still had the mechanical lever machines for the primary (n/t)

[Gloria]

4. I heard him on the radio about this....but then it was corrected....

It wasn't the case. I'm trying to remember whose show it was....Hartmann??

The mystery host said Brad would be on again, I think he said he's on on a regular basis, Fridays.

[Wilms]

18. The 2000 data is the final tally. The 2006 is the uncertified total CNN reports.

So, of course, it'll change.

But that's still one hell of a an preliminary/unofficial report tally. No? :shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

5. Did some computations (What do you think?)

2006 1,131,692 86.3%
2000 1,311,261

Is this typical for a midterm election to have 86.3% turnout vs a Presidential Election year in CT?

Local Congressional District Election in Indiana
2006 146,606 69.7%
2000 210,430


If about 70% of Presidential Election year is the norm for turnout for a midterm election...
Maybe the results should had been

917882 Projected 2006 total for CT 2006

448077 Lamont result
109329 Schlesinger result
5923 Ferrucci total
4638 Knibbs total
567967 total for Lieberman challengers

917882 Total votes cast
567967 Total votes for Lieberman challengers
349915 Votes Lieberman actually received????

Lieberman lost by 104000 votes!!!!!!!!!????????

Couldn't do our Senate election because he didn't really have competition.

[ISUGRADIA]

22. 2000 numbers are not a good comparison

in 2004 turnout was @1,550,000 in Ct

[LiberalFighter]

27. You need to use 2000 because it is a Senate race

It would be better to compare another state-wide race in the same state or US Senate race in more than one state to determine voter turnout. The other factor is that midterm elections have lower turnout than presidential elections. Which is what I was trying to determine potential results.

[ISUGRADIA]

37. Then why not the 2004 Senate race for Dodd?

[LiberalFighter]

39. 2004 was also a presidential election year

Best comparison is mid-term to mid-term or Presidential election to Presidential election because they involve the same groups of people that vote. Otherwise, next best comparison is elections involving the same candidate or candidates in the same race.

Just like Congressional elections you don't go back to 2004 to determine the outcome of 2006 unless you can determine the likely turnout of voters. But 2002 would be a good reference point if doing a campaign in 2006 because they are both mid-term elections. But using 1998 even though a mid-term election would not be as good because it was before the redistricting and there was a major change in the district here in Indiana mainly because we now have 9 districts instead of 10.

Comparing Dodd with Lieberman even though they are Democrats (I know Lieberman is not consider one by many of us) does not work either since they are not the same individual.

If one wanted to do a better comparison using the Democratic candidate for President as a base in 2000 or 2004 to determine if the candidate would generally have the same group of voters or if there are crossovers. In off years the top state-wide vote getter would be used such as Secretary of State in our state.

I don't have that data available and used what was available as a rough determination. You are more than welcome to obtain the data for Connecticut and come up with your own analysis.

[understandinglife]

6. "Houston, we've got a problem here ...."

NOT ONE LINE OF SOFTWARE BETWEEN A VOTER AND A VALID ELECTION

[understandinglife]

8. I've emailed this to Jane Hamsher at firedoglake and to David Sirota ...

... and if any of you have direct contact with Ned Lamont or others on Ned's team, they need to look at this quickly.

Thanks.


Peace.

[TheWraith]

9. You do know that CT doesn't have electronic voting, right?

There's no software involved.

[Autumn Colors]

17. Monroe was one of the "guinea pig" towns using optical scan

Not sure how many other CT towns did also, but yes, some towns changed over this election.

[understandinglife]

24. There is software involved in the tabulation ....

NOT ONE LINE OF SOFTWARE BETWEEN A VOTER AND A VALID ELECTION.

[EFerrari]

25. Tabulators for op scan systems. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

35. too ashamed to call it Diebold, they said "LHS Associates...."

25 municipalities got Diebolded in November:

According to Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, the state has entered
into an agreement with LHS Associates of Massachusetts to provide optical scan
technology to replace lever voting machines in 25 municipalities across the state.
In addition, all polling places will be equipped with new technology to help disabled voters.

In 2007 - all of Connecticut to be Diebolded.

While 25 cities and towns will receive the new optical scan machines for
next month's election, LHS will replace all lever machines by the
November 2007 municipal elections.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17381703&BRD=1633&PAG=461&dept_id=11608&rfi=6

Kind of like those GOP candidates who pretend to be DEMS.

[clichemoth]

7. That is...bizarre.

Especially since there's basically no chance that it's the same 448,077 people, with Giordano being a Republican and Lamont being a Dem and all.

Also, count those '06 votes. Lieberman did not get 50%. 448,077 + 109,329 = 557,406 + 5,923 = 563,329 + 4,536 = 567,865. Shouldn't that warrant a runoff? Of course, he'd still win because it's rigged, but it's the principle of the thing.

[ISUGRADIA]

21. CT does not have a runoff law for Senate, the only one that

I can think of that does is Georgia.

[kster]

10. Even I know the math on this one

250 billion, gazillion to one that this could have happened. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

26. That's what I got, too. lol

:)

[snot]

12. So bizarre as to suggest a "Ratherizing" gambit? nt

[kster]

14. Joes new name "AGENT 448,077".....just a thought......nt

[snot]

15. ha ha! nt

[texpatriot2004]

13. K & R for Transparent Democracy nm

[autorank]

20. K&R I can't tell yo what a kick I get out of this.

I sent TIA the link for obvious reasons...how do you figure the probability of this?

It's so wacky. I don't know the scene up in old Connecticut vis a vis election fraud.

I do know it's a great state in many ways with lots of bright, patriotic people.

If there's something there, they'll figure it out quickly;)

[kster]

31. Sfexpat2000 and I already did the math up thread

no need to bother TIA on this one. LOL

[DemReadingDU]

23. well, well, well

K&R

[kster]

29. "Everyone gets" 18181 ELECTION SCIENCE

http://www.electionscience.org/Members/Unregistered%20User/electionexperience.2004-08-12.9250914376/view?searchterm=None

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/18181

[Febble]

30. Now that IS weird.

I think.

[Joanne98]

32. Nobody moved or died. (sarcasm)

[nicknameless]

40. delete

[Febble]

42. Total for Lamont

now stands at 480,481.

Lieberman has 604,090.

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

Results for 2002 here:

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